From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Tue Apr 1 07:24:39 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 00:24:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> Message-ID: <2ED3A2DD-CF37-4E57-8003-0790CB813759@wesleyan.edu> On 2014 Mar 30, at 14:38, Roger Pewick wrote: > The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not of an [discloseable] agreement. > > The AC ruled that NS had no relevant agreement [secret or not] as follows: > > "The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H." > > My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't, then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing. The laws to consider are 16B (extraneous info from partner), 40C (?Deviation from System and Psychic Action?), and 47E (play based on misinfo). My reading of the writeup is that the director and the review panel: * did not apply 16B because, although it?s possible responder?s pass was illegally influenced by UI from opener and not just, as he claimed, by AI from opponents, the director and the panel apparently didn?t feel there was enough evidence to reach that conclusion, * did not apply 47E because they concluded that even if declarer knew that responder thought that opener had psyched, and therefore knew that responder might have passed with a 14-count, declarer still wouldn?t possess enough information to place the CA in responder?s hand rather than opener?s, and * did adjust the score and issue a severe procedural penalty under 40C, which (as quoted in the writeup) says ?If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.? Tim -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4889 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140401/aa3439fa/attachment.bin From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Tue Apr 1 14:33:47 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 07:33:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1984 In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <43D49D6BF8B24BBBB285A26328718544@erdos> Message-ID: <1D88C402-CFC9-4B6B-90AA-26C2A9832BDE@wesleyan.edu> On 2014 Mar 30, at 14:38, Roger Pewick wrote: > The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not of an [discloseable] agreement. > > The AC ruled that NS had no relevant agreement [secret or not] as follows: > > "The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H." > > My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't, then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing. The laws to consider are 16B (extraneous info from partner), 40C (?Deviation from System and Psychic Action?), and 47E (play based on misinfo). My reading of the writeup is that the director and the review panel: * did not apply 16B because, although it?s possible responder?s pass was illegally influenced by UI from opener and not just, as he claimed, by AI from opponents, the director and the panel apparently didn?t feel there was enough evidence to reach that conclusion, * did not apply 47E because they concluded that even if declarer knew that responder thought that opener had psyched, and therefore knew that responder might have passed with a 14-count, declarer still wouldn?t possess enough information to place the CA in responder?s hand rather than opener?s, and * did adjust the score and issue a severe procedural penalty under 40C, which (as quoted in the writeup) says ?If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.? Tim From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 1 14:40:40 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:40:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: The idea of not rectifying is described as"tempting". By this, I think Kaplan means it is the ruling a director -- trying to be fair and equitable -- would like to make. Now we can add logic to this. Kaplan is using the most primitive method of determining damage. There is a more sophisticated method that applies to this case. Using the more sophisticated method, there was no damage. No there was no damage, no need to rectify, and this ruling was wrong and makes the laws look bad. I am not saying that the laws require making the decision that occurred. The problem is that the laws contain only the most primitive definition of damage. On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:39:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> What about when the AI is correct? >> Then is it always used at the player?s own risk? >Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002: >+=+ Please consider this: >Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan, > Oct 8, 1989. >Dear Mr Krishnan, >Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling > in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer > explained to her screenmate, who would be the > opening leader, that her response to Exclusion > Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed > hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as > correctly explained on the other side of the screen > actually promised zero (or three) aces by > partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening > leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would > have defeated the contract. >It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was > wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told > the number of aces in declarer?s hand, so what harm > was done? That reasoning may be common sense > but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may > require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she > holds, but bridge law requires something quite > different: declarer must give her opponent an > accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. > She didn?t. Of course it is inevitable that a player > who forgets her agreement behind a screen will > break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. > She will be morally blameless, since she explains in > all honesty and good faith, but what the law > demands of the explanation is not good faith, the > law demands accuracy. >Declarer?s inaccurate though honest explanation > was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough > to determine the director?s ruling, since information > about aces obviously might affect the decision > whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee?s > ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely > unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that > the opening lead would have been different had the > opening leader been given the accurate explanation > (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate > explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was > far from convinced that the one-ace explanation > would have induced the singleton lead (had it been > convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six > down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a > small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the > Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, > ?average plus? to the innocent team. >Note that the strange circumstances of this case > arose only because of a screen procedure, where a > player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd > requirement that she give an accurate explanation > of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The > closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, > is the position in which you know that your partner > has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four > clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart > opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you > hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is > obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the > agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. > First though, your right-hand opponent asks about > the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be ?Strong > four hearts opening with a very good heart suit?. That > is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your > partnership agreement, not your partner?s hand. That > legal obligation remains the same when, behind > screens, you must explain your own action. >> > I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. >Sincerely, > Edgar Kaplan. > Oct. 8th 1989. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140401/0799b8af/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 1 14:44:15 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:44:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Because [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A44F25@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:39:33 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL > >> What about when the AI is correct? >> Then is it always used at the player?s own risk? >Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002: >+=+ Please consider this: >Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan, > Oct 8, 1989. >Dear Mr Krishnan, >Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling > in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer > explained to her screenmate, who would be the > opening leader, that her response to Exclusion > Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed > hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as > correctly explained on the other side of the screen > actually promised zero (or three) aces by > partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening > leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would > have defeated the contract. >It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was > wrong? After all, opening leader was correctly told > the number of aces in declarer?s hand, so what harm > was done? That reasoning may be common sense > but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may > require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she > holds, but bridge law requires something quite > different: declarer must give her opponent an > accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. > She didn?t. Of course it is inevitable that a player > who forgets her agreement behind a screen will > break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. > She will be morally blameless, since she explains in > all honesty and good faith, but what the law > demands of the explanation is not good faith, the > law demands accuracy. >Declarer?s inaccurate though honest explanation > was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough > to determine the director?s ruling, since information > about aces obviously might affect the decision > whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee?s > ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely > unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that > the opening lead would have been different had the > opening leader been given the accurate explanation > (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate > explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was > far from convinced that the one-ace explanation > would have induced the singleton lead (had it been > convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six > down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a > small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the > Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, > ?average plus? to the innocent team. >Note that the strange circumstances of this case > arose only because of a screen procedure, where a > player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd > requirement that she give an accurate explanation > of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The > closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, > is the position in which you know that your partner > has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four > clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart > opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you > hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx C void. It is > obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the > agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. > First though, your right-hand opponent asks about > the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be ?Strong > four hearts opening with a very good heart suit?. That > is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your > partnership agreement, not your partner?s hand. That > legal obligation remains the same when, behind > screens, you must explain your own action. And, if Kaplan was being logical and just finishing his own thought, he would have added this: When a player says his partner forgot the bid, there can be rectification for any damage caused by this irregularity. Which lacks common sense, etc. >> > I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. >Sincerely, > Edgar Kaplan. > Oct. 8th 1989. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140401/0bda03f2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 03:37:28 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:37:28 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 1984 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A5D476@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL George Orwell, 1984: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Herman De Wael: >..... >OK, we may conclude that North fielded the psyche. But I've read the >Lawbook again and again, and I've never seen those words in there. Richard Hills: Because the so-called infraction of "fielding a psyche" should not be in the Lawbook; it is as much a contradiction in terms as "War is Peace". "Fielding" is not the infraction; it is the undisclosed (Law 40B4) and/or illegal (Law 40B5) convention which is the infraction. A "fielding" response is merely ++evidence++ of an undisclosed (Law 40B4) and/or illegal (Law 40B5) pre-existing implicit partnership understanding. Herman De Wael: >There can be many reasons why a player fields a psyche: > >1) he sees in his hand that someone has severely overbid. He knows >the psyching tendencies of partner, and perhaps of opponents. He acts >accordingly. Nothing is wrong, except the psyching frequency of >partner may not have been communicated to opponents. > >2) he guesses that partner has psyched, and is prepared to be proven >wrong. Nothing is wrong again, except perhaps the psyching frequency >which may be higher than normal, making it more likely that opponents >are misinformed. Richard Hills: In the tradition of "War is Peace" Herman defines "Pseudo-Psyche is Psyche". The fact that the player "knows the psyching tendencies of partner" means that pard's psyches have ceased to be psyches. Law 40C1, initial two sentences:: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his ++partner has no more reason to be aware++ of the deviation than have the opponents. ++Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings++ which then form ++part of the partnership's methods++ and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." Herman De Wael: >..... >My guess is this was a case 1, so no PP ought to have been given. >Herman. Law 40C1, final sentence: "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Law 40B5: "When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament [e.g. a Highly Unusual Method to open the bidding at the one level with a near-Yarborough] the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140403/3cf63d86/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 04:38:30 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 02:38:30 +0000 Subject: [BLML] WBF Disciplinary Commission, 21st and 22nd March in Dallas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A5D4CA@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL http://www.bridge.nl/documenten/Hearing21-22March2014.pdf WBF quoted Lord Goff of Chieveley, Regina v. Gough (1993): ".....Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I prefer to state the test in terms of real danger rather than real likelihood, to ensure that the court is thinking in terms of possibility rather than probability of bias. Accordingly, having ascertained the relevant circumstances, the court should ask itself whether, having regard to those circumstances, there was a real danger of bias on the part of the relevant member of the tribunal in question, in the sense that he might unfairly regard (or have unfairly regarded) with favour, or disfavour, the case of a party to the issue under consideration by him;....." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140403/b3a55996/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 3 13:52:48 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:52:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. Message-ID: <533D4B90.50304@skynet.be> I hope the following link works around the world - it did in Belgium: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zby8c 45 minutes radio play abour the Buenos Aires affair. Nothing new, though. Herman. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 4 07:56:32 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:56:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. In-Reply-To: <533D4B90.50304@skynet.be> References: <533D4B90.50304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003401cf4fca$a1e5be10$e5b13a30$@optusnet.com.au> Thanks Herman, Listening to bridge on radio takes me back to Test Cricket and even Davis Cup on the steam wireless. Of course, in Australia we have had many recent instances of prominent business identities, and even parliamentarians demonstrably lying under oath, so my na?ve director's faith in believing players' self serving evidence is becoming rather bruised. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2014 10:53 PM > To: blml > Subject: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. > > I hope the following link works around the world - it did in Belgium: > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zby8c > > 45 minutes radio play abour the Buenos Aires affair. > > Nothing new, though. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 00:56:40 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 22:56:40 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A63101@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Doctor Johnson's Dictionary (1755), definition of "network": "Any thing reticulated or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections." Thanks Herman, Listening to bridge on radio takes me back to Test Cricket and even Davis Cup on the steam wireless. Of course, in Australia we have had many recent instances of prominent business identities, and even parliamentarians demonstrably lying under oath, so my na?ve director's faith in believing players' self serving evidence is becoming rather bruised. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Thanks Tony, Your postings restore my na?ve faith in blml, which was become rather bruised after reading presumptuous criticism of Edgar Kaplan by a Law-breaking philosopher: >..... >Kaplan is using the most primitive method of determining >damage. There is a more sophisticated method that >applies to this case. Using the more sophisticated method, >there was no damage. > >No there was no damage, no need to rectify, and this >ruling was wrong and makes the laws look bad. > >I am not saying that the laws require making the decision >that occurred. The problem is that the laws contain only >the most primitive definition of damage. Cheers, Richard (Canberra) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140406/8b826023/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 8 12:11:52 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 06:11:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A63101@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A63101@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:56:40 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Doctor Johnson?s Dictionary (1755), definition of ?network?: >?Any thing reticulated or decussated, at equal distances, with > interstices between the intersections.? >Thanks Herman, >Listening to bridge on radio takes me back to Test Cricket > and even Davis Cup on the steam wireless. Of course, in > Australia we have had many recent instances of prominent > business identities, and even parliamentarians demonstrably > lying under oath, so my na?ve director?s faith in believing > players? self serving evidence is becoming rather bruised. >Cheers, >Tony (Sydney) >Thanks Tony, >Your postings restore my na?ve faith in blml, which was > become rather bruised after reading presumptuous > criticism of Edgar Kaplan by a Law-breaking philosopher: Presumptious? Also, it is interesting that Kaplan makes no mention of his 1973 distinction between subsequent damage and consequent damage. Clearly we have subsequent damage. But I think no consequent damage. >>..... >> Kaplan is using the most primitive method of determining >> damage. There is a more sophisticated method that >> applies to this case. Using the more sophisticated method, >> there was no damage. >> >> No there was no damage, no need to rectify, and this >> ruling was wrong and makes the laws look bad. >> >> I am not saying that the laws require making the decision >> that occurred. The problem is that the laws contain only >> the most primitive definition of damage. >Cheers, >Richard (Canberra) > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140408/15466bac/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 8 12:40:31 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 06:40:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L65D and agreement Message-ID: Declarer and dummy said "down 1" and one defender agreed. They folded up their cards. The other defender then said "down 2". (The fourth player's cards looked to be in order but did not seem to be in order when I examined them.) A critical question was if that counted as agreement per L65D ("Agreement on Results of Play"). There was no L79A1 infraction, all four hands had not been returned to the board. Not sure how that would be relevant. And, ironically, while the first defender was agreeing on the results of play, that defender was not agreeing on number of tricks won -- the defender claimed that she was agreeing to 1NT down one, when the contract was actually 2NT. L79B2 apparently covered the situation -- "The director rules what score is to be recorded". And I consulted with a lawyer/director who said that one person agreeing counts as an agreement. From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 8 14:17:24 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:17:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L65D and agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002001cf5324$802e9be0$808bd3a0$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Robert Frick > Sendt: 8. april 2014 12:41 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] L65D and agreement > > Declarer and dummy said "down 1" and one defender agreed. They folded up > their cards. The other defender then said "down 2". (The fourth player's cards > looked to be in order but did not seem to be in order when I examined them.) > > A critical question was if that counted as agreement per L65D ("Agreement on > Results of Play"). > > There was no L79A1 infraction, all four hands had not been returned to the > board. Not sure how that would be relevant. > > And, ironically, while the first defender was agreeing on the results of play, that > defender was not agreeing on number of tricks won -- the defender claimed > that she was agreeing to 1NT down one, when the contract was actually 2NT. > > L79B2 apparently covered the situation -- "The director rules what score is to > be recorded". And I consulted with a lawyer/director who said that one person > agreeing counts as an agreement. [Sven Pran] Wrong. Why? - figure it out yourself From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Apr 8 14:59:39 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:59:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L65D and agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A9BB848-8A7C-4727-AE2D-44A87C26D844@verizon.net> On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer and dummy said "down 1" and one defender agreed. They folded up > their cards. The other defender then said "down 2". (The fourth player's > cards looked to be in order but did not seem to be in order when I > examined them.) > > A critical question was if that counted as agreement per L65D ("Agreement > on Results of Play"). No, the critical question is whether declarer was down one or down two. Only if the TD can't determine that do the legal niceties of what constitutes "agreement" matter. > There was no L79A1 infraction, all four hands had not been returned to the > board. Not sure how that would be relevant. > > And, ironically, while the first defender was agreeing on the results of > play, that defender was not agreeing on number of tricks won -- the > defender claimed that she was agreeing to 1NT down one, when the contract > was actually 2NT. > > L79B2 apparently covered the situation -- "The director rules what score > is to be recorded". And I consulted with a lawyer/director who said that > one person agreeing counts as an agreement. Rather than consult with lawyers, I'd have spent my time and effort trying to work out what actually happened at the table. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 8 19:49:27 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:49:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L65D and agreement In-Reply-To: <3A9BB848-8A7C-4727-AE2D-44A87C26D844@verizon.net> References: <3A9BB848-8A7C-4727-AE2D-44A87C26D844@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:59:39 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Declarer and dummy said "down 1" and one defender agreed. They folded up >> their cards. The other defender then said "down 2". (The fourth player's >> cards looked to be in order but did not seem to be in order when I >> examined them.) >> >> A critical question was if that counted as agreement per L65D >> ("Agreement >> on Results of Play"). > > No, the critical question is whether declarer was down one or down two. > Only if the TD can't determine that do the legal niceties of what > constitutes "agreement" matter. > >> There was no L79A1 infraction, all four hands had not been returned to >> the >> board. Not sure how that would be relevant. >> >> And, ironically, while the first defender was agreeing on the results of >> play, that defender was not agreeing on number of tricks won -- the >> defender claimed that she was agreeing to 1NT down one, when the >> contract >> was actually 2NT. >> >> L79B2 apparently covered the situation -- "The director rules what score >> is to be recorded". And I consulted with a lawyer/director who said that >> one person agreeing counts as an agreement. > > Rather than consult with lawyers, I'd have spent my time and effort > trying to work out what actually happened at the table. Video cameras you mean? EW were not good enough to remember the play of the hand. > > > Eric Landau > Silver Spring MD > New York NY > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 9 06:13:41 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:13:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A63101@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <002401cf53aa$17a46830$46ed3890$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: Tuesday, 8 April 2014 8:12 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:56:40 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: UNOFFICIAL Doctor Johnson?s Dictionary (1755), definition of ?network?: ?Any thing reticulated or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections.? Thanks Herman, Listening to bridge on radio takes me back to Test Cricket and even Davis Cup on the steam wireless. Of course, in Australia we have had many recent instances of prominent business identities, and even parliamentarians demonstrably lying under oath, so my na?ve director?s faith in believing players? self serving evidence is becoming rather bruised. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Thanks Tony, Your postings restore my na?ve faith in blml, which was become rather bruised after reading presumptuous criticism of Edgar Kaplan by a Law-breaking philosopher: Presumptious? tony: no, I think you will find that presumptuous is the correct spelling Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Also, it is interesting that Kaplan makes no mention of his 1973 distinction between subsequent damage and consequent damage. Clearly we have subsequent damage. But I think no consequent damage. >..... >Kaplan is using the most primitive method of determining >damage. There is a more sophisticated method that >applies to this case. Using the more sophisticated method, >there was no damage. > >No there was no damage, no need to rectify, and this >ruling was wrong and makes the laws look bad. > >I am not saying that the laws require making the decision >that occurred. The problem is that the laws contain only >the most primitive definition of damage. Cheers, Richard (Canberra) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140409/44e3d3f8/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 9 06:43:04 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:43:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Reese Shapiro on BBC Radio 4. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401cf53aa$17a46830$46ed3890$@optusnet.com.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A63101@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <002401cf53aa$17a46830$46ed3890$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000101cf53ae$323012e0$969038a0$@optusnet.com.au> Richard: Your postings restore my na?ve faith in blml, which was become rather bruised after reading presumptuous criticism of Edgar Kaplan by a Law-breaking philosopher: Sorrowfully, I have a prot?g? who has taken up directing and she ?loves? it. The most important advice I could give her is not to subscribe to blml. Unlike 20 years ago when authoritative posts by DWS, John Probst, Grattan, the Danish guy, the Russian guy, Alan le Bendig etc. could be relied upon to illuminate the correct interpretation of the pre 2007 FLB, these days it would be very difficult for a neophyte to detect the gurus from the heretics, or the merely insane. There are better forums around to learn about rulings, or check on interpretations. However, I still enjoy Richard?s erudition, which I hope is sufficient to persuade the tax man that it is a necessary tax deduction. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140409/be5fbe72/attachment-0001.html From jeff.ford at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 17:16:29 2014 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:16:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French Message-ID: For those who don't know, Marvin passed away in February. The ACBL Bridge Bulletin published a memorial this month, and there is a web memorial online here containing much of the same information: http://www.lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Memorials/MarvinFrench.htm Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140411/6e86f584/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 17:45:27 2014 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:45:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry to hear this. Didn't always agree with him, but definitely respected him. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: > For those who don't know, Marvin passed away in February. > > The ACBL Bridge Bulletin published a memorial this month, and there is a > web memorial online here containing much of the same information: > http://www.lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Memorials/MarvinFrench.htm > > Jeff > > > -- > Jeff Ford > Redmond, WA > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140411/6514fe31/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 18:19:25 2014 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:19:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5348160D.60000@gmail.com> On 04/11/2014 11:16 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: > For those who don't know, Marvin passed away in February. > > The ACBL Bridge Bulletin published a memorial this month, and there is > a web memorial online here containing much of the same information: > http://www.lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Memorials/MarvinFrench.htm > Sad news indeed. Although I never met Marv in person, being about as far away from him as you can get in the lower 48, I exchanged a fair number of e-mails with him, both on the subject of his Skeleton bidding system and as an unofficial tour guide for his trips to the UK. At least 86 isn't a bad innings. Rest in peace, Marv. Brian. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Apr 11 19:21:34 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:21:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <219F255ED4BA4138BE6258700A6C5182@G3> [Jeff Ford] For those who don't know, Marvin passed away in February. The ACBL Bridge Bulletin published a memorial this month, and there is a web memorial online here containing much of the same information: http://www.lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Memorials/MarvinFrench.htm [Nigel] Marvin's contributions to BLML were always interesting and enjoyable. Sad to learn of his death. Thank you for the link, Jeff From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Sat Apr 12 06:07:03 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 00:07:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] written bidding Message-ID: <30DE3D91-B15C-4D75-81C6-C1D5AD73E37C@wesleyan.edu> On a recent visit to Sydney, Australia, (to meet my newborn granddaughter!) I had my first encounter with written bidding. I have a couple observations. I?d be interested in the comments of Australian directors experienced with both written bidding and bidding boxes. My general impression (based on one weekday afternoon at a local club) was highly favorable. Written bidding seemed to work at least as well as bidding boxes in all respects (except paper consumption). I didn?t witness anything like some problems that are all too common with bidding boxes: ?mechanical? misspulls, insufficient bids, calls out of rotation, calls covered up or placed at suspicious angles, reaching for one half of the box or one call before reconsidering, scooping up the cards and putting them away prematurely, or having to give a review after the bidding cards have been put away. (Of course, written bidding does nothing to prevent informative breaks in tempo, sometimes accompanied by pen-hand gestures.) The bidding slip, including alerts made by reaching over and circling partner?s call, must be very handy when the director has to make a ruling. There was one procedural peculiarity at this club. As North, I instinctively put the bidding slip out of sight when third hand played to the first trick (after which no one is entitled to a review of the auction). This seemed to disconcert people. Apparently the accepted practice in this club is to leave the slip on top of the board throughout the play. Is this common practice? I checked afterwards, and the regulations do say ?The written bidding sheet remains in view until the third player (partner of the opening leader) has played to the first trick when it should be removed (or turned over) by dummy. If dummy omits to do this then another player may remove the bidding sheet.? Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140412/69ce4b3a/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Apr 12 09:23:30 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:23:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] written bidding In-Reply-To: <30DE3D91-B15C-4D75-81C6-C1D5AD73E37C@wesleyan.edu> References: <30DE3D91-B15C-4D75-81C6-C1D5AD73E37C@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <000101cf5620$1b90a440$52b1ecc0$@optusnet.com.au> One of our senior Directors, CTD at the NSWBA, has been very vocal in not endorsing the use of bidding boxes since he thinks that it facilitates many directing decisions that you have mentioned. In country NSW there are many clubs which adhere rigorously to the rules and cover the bidding box after the first trick. Local carpenters outdo each other in inventing devices for the purpose. However, at each of my clubs in Sydney we would consider such practices a bit posh, and I have never seen other clubs in Sydney who care. I prefer bidding boxes when I play at the NSWBA, but otherwise do not care too much. (I used to like spoken bidding except when I played in Italy once, and ended up in quattro cuori, which the Italians insisted was quattro fiori, owing to just learned Italian). Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Timothy N. Hill Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2014 2:07 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] written bidding On a recent visit to Sydney, Australia, (to meet my newborn granddaughter!) I had my first encounter with written bidding. I have a couple observations. I'd be interested in the comments of Australian directors experienced with both written bidding and bidding boxes. My general impression (based on one weekday afternoon at a local club) was highly favorable. Written bidding seemed to work at least as well as bidding boxes in all respects (except paper consumption). I didn't witness anything like some problems that are all too common with bidding boxes: "mechanical" misspulls, insufficient bids, calls out of rotation, calls covered up or placed at suspicious angles, reaching for one half of the box or one call before reconsidering, scooping up the cards and putting them away prematurely, or having to give a review after the bidding cards have been put away. (Of course, written bidding does nothing to prevent informative breaks in tempo, sometimes accompanied by pen-hand gestures.) The bidding slip, including alerts made by reaching over and circling partner's call, must be very handy when the director has to make a ruling. There was one procedural peculiarity at this club. As North, I instinctively put the bidding slip out of sight when third hand played to the first trick (after which no one is entitled to a review of the auction). This seemed to disconcert people. Apparently the accepted practice in this club is to leave the slip on top of the board throughout the play. Is this common practice? I checked afterwards, and the regulations do say "The written bidding sheet remains in view until the third player (partner of the opening leader) has played to the first trick when it should be removed (or turned over) by dummy. If dummy omits to do this then another player may remove the bidding sheet." Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140412/080c0d89/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Apr 12 09:52:24 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:52:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5348F0B8.6070703@btinternet.com> I'm sorry to hear this, and grateful to Jeff for telling us. For me, who knew Marvin only through BLML, rec.games.bridge and a few email exchanges, it's interesting to get the fuller picture of him from other's memories. I missed him when he came to London in September 2001 because I was in Venice. I'm grateful to him for having introduced me to Web Mitchells, which have become a feature of the events I run. Gordon Rainsford On 11/04/2014 16:16, Jeff Ford wrote: > For those who don't know, Marvin passed away in February. > > The ACBL Bridge Bulletin published a memorial this month, and there is > a web memorial online here containing much of the same information: > http://www.lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Memorials/MarvinFrench.htm > > Jeff > > > -- > Jeff Ford > Redmond, WA > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140412/8c164f2a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 13 20:58:32 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:58:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] no damage (last Friday) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: E S W N 1D P 3C P North at this point said that 3C might be alertable. I was called to the table and eventually ended up sending East away from the table and letting West explain the partnership understanding of his own bid. He said it was a strong jump shift. East came back and then passed. South passed, quickly and happily. South would know she might get a bottom if everyone else was in slam going down. She was, of course, quite willing to take that risk. So I assume no director is going to protect her if it turns out that she was not given the correct explanation of the partnership agreement. Now we can explain logically why she shouldn't be protected. Players (almost always) use the explanation of the partnership agreement to find out what a player has in his hand. Getting that from the player himself is higher quality information, and she was happy to be getting that higher quality information and fortunate to be getting it. One piece of evidence is this: If, following the auction, we had had a long discussion attempting to determine the true partnership agreement and it was something different, she still would have passed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 05:40:08 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 03:40:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Good Old Days [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A6FAA4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Oxford English Dictionary, Teacher Notes: The assembled audiences for The Good Old Days were expected to dress in period costume (and stick-on side-whiskers and fake moustaches!) and 'ooh' and 'aah' in all the appropriate places as Sachs introduced the next act with alliterative attacks of alarming alacrity in a constipated display of perspicacious polysyllabic peripatetics, culminating in the banging of his gavel, which heralded the appearance of a teaming torrent of tempting talent -for our delight and delectation, naturally. Tony Musgrove, nostalgia for the good old days of blml, 9th April 2014: >Sorrowfully, I have a prot?g? who has taken up directing and she "loves" >it. The most important advice I could give her is not to subscribe to blml. >Unlike 20 years ago when authoritative posts by DWS, John Probst, >Grattan, the Danish guy, the Russian guy, Alan le Bendig etc. could be >relied upon to illuminate the correct interpretation of the pre 2007 FLB, >these days it would be very difficult for a neophyte to detect the gurus >from the heretics, or the merely insane. There are better forums around >to learn about rulings, or check on interpretations. >..... Grattan Endicott, blml posting from the good old day of 13th June 2007: +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140415/303da73d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 06:12:52 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:12:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A6FAD6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Despite our differences in age and political philosophy (me the Aussie equivalent of an Adlai Stevenson Democrat, Marv being an Eisenhower Republican), we formed an email friendship discussing movies. Attached is Marv's last movie review to me. Best wishes, Richard James Hills >I sent for a Pompeii: First Day documentary >and it was great. Good acting, good history. >I had forgotten that Pliny the Elder died >trying to save survivors. > >The Concerto was a film I enjoyed immensely. >A bunch of Jewish musicians were barred from >playing in Moscow so many years later they >got together and pretended to be the Bolshoi >orchestra, getting a big date in Paris. >Wonderful story. > >Marv UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140415/95662cac/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 09:08:54 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:08:54 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A6FB9C@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills, October 2009: >On a tangential issue, why this emphasis on the non-offending side? >As a member of the offending side I have frequently requested an >adjusted score against my side's interests to comply with Law 79A2: > >"A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick >that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his >opponents could not lose." Marvin French, October 2009: A current member of the ACBL BoD, a pro then playing with a customer, accepted my partner's concession of a trick when the trick could not be lost. As an inattentive dummy I missed that. Later the pro told me, "If they give, I take." Not a very good role model. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140415/4314704b/attachment-0001.html From adam at irvine.com Tue Apr 15 19:36:16 2014 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:36:16 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:16:29 PDT." Message-ID: <20140415173619.D25C9A8C880@mailhub.irvine.com> I was saddened to read of his passing. He made a lot of useful contributions to BLML and rec.games.bridge. I think I did play a couple boards against him a long time ago in a local tournament, and while that wasn't enough time to get to know him personally, I remember him as being pleasant to play against. -- Adam > For those who don't know, Marvin passed away in February. > > The ACBL Bridge Bulletin published a memorial this month, and there is a > web memorial online here containing much of the same information: > http://www.lajollabridge.com/LJUnit/Memorials/MarvinFrench.htm > > Jeff From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 16 06:48:02 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:48:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] no damage (last Friday) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004101cf592f$0cb44730$261cd590$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Monday, 14 April 2014 4:59 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] no damage (last Friday) > > E S W N > > 1D P 3C P > > North at this point said that 3C might be alertable. I was called to the > table and eventually ended up sending East away from the table and letting > West explain the partnership understanding of his own bid. He said it was > a strong jump shift. East came back and then passed. South passed, quickly > and happily. > > South would know she might get a bottom if everyone else was in slam > going > down. She was, of course, quite willing to take that risk. So I assume no > director is going to protect her if it turns out that she was not given > the correct explanation of the partnership agreement. > > Now we can explain logically why she shouldn't be protected. Players > (almost always) use the explanation of the partnership agreement to find > out what a player has in his hand. Getting that from the player himself is > higher quality information, and she was happy to be getting that higher > quality information and fortunate to be getting it. One piece of evidence > is this: If, following the auction, we had had a long discussion > attempting to determine the true partnership agreement and it was > something different, she still would have passed. [tony] Why oh why can't I get players like this at my club? I am lucky to get a revoke on which to practice my sarcasm and low wit. We have a player who craves protection against opponent's incompetence? Give me a break I believe is the US expression, don't come the raw prawn, in Oz. One can only imagine what will happen if playing against John Probst, she gets a perfect description of a hand bearing no similarity to the hand held by John during the bidding. Brought the house down at the Young Chelsea! Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed Apr 16 14:50:15 2014 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:50:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman Message-ID: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140416/f0474ccb/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 15:28:24 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:28:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents Message-ID: <534E8578.9050802@ulb.ac.be> Hi all I'd like your advice on one situation which could happen (and already happened) in countries where some calls (like doubles and cues) aren't alertable. 1C* p 1D** 1H Dbl@ * classical in a 5-card majors framework ** T-Walsh (Hearts) @ you play support doubles (3 cards and a non-minimum) ; but of course here it doesn't make sense if 1H is natural, so it's plain penalties (although there is arguably little difference in the type of hands which will double) You're the 1D bidder, and are asked by RHO about the double. How do you react ? You might of course say "it depends on the meaning of 1H, so please explain first and I'll tell you", but it will draw RHO's attention to the fact that 1H might in fact be artificial (some kind of take-out). You might say "if 1H is natural etc.", with the same effect. Alas, you may not assume from the lack of alert that 1H is natural and answer accordingly, because if it is a cue-bid, it isn't alertable either ! Most problematic : that conditional explanation will make apparent that your bid meant hearts. That might be considered as UI to your partner, just in case he forgot you're playing T-Walsh (maybe he alerted plain Walsh or something else). So, the question is : are you compelled to remember RHO that 1H might be artificial and partner that 1D is ? Or is there some way out ? Thank you for your help. Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Apr 16 15:50:43 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:50:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-16 8:50 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: > Nothing is said about how to convert the matchpoints to a percentage score, No one needs to do this. > let alone how to do this in case of boards with different tops. Another lacuna is what to do when contestants play differing numbers of boards. > Is it not time that Ascherman and Neuberg are explicitly incorporated in > the laws? Perhaps there should be default rules in the Laws, but RAs should have authority to adopt their own. There is no mathematical basis for Ascherman/Neuberg (technically they are biased estimators), and I don't know that anyone has a proper formula. Just as an example, present arrangements for handling differing tops and differing numbers of boards are contradictory. I think it should be possible to derive a proper formula based on Stein's Paradox, but so far as I know, it hasn't been done. In the meantime, Ascherman/Neuberg is a reasonable approximation. More on this subject is at http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt > I have put some notes on this subject on the internet, showing that > Neuberg and Ascherman are not all that difficult to understand, see > http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/index_en.htm I agree with you that they are not difficult to understand or apply. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Wed Apr 16 16:40:00 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:40:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents In-Reply-To: <534E8578.9050802@ulb.ac.be> References: <534E8578.9050802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <534E9640.3050702@verizon.net> On 4/16/2014 9:28 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I'd like your advice on one situation which could happen (and already > happened) in countries where some calls (like doubles and cues) aren't > alertable. > > 1C* p 1D** 1H > Dbl@ > > * classical in a 5-card majors framework > ** T-Walsh (Hearts) > @ you play support doubles (3 cards and a non-minimum) ; but of course > here it doesn't make sense if 1H is natural, so it's plain penalties > (although there is arguably little difference in the type of hands which > will double) > > You're the 1D bidder, and are asked by RHO about the double. > > How do you react ? > > You might of course say "it depends on the meaning of 1H, so please > explain first and I'll tell you", but it will draw RHO's attention to > the fact that 1H might in fact be artificial (some kind of take-out). > You might say "if 1H is natural etc.", with the same effect. > Alas, you may not assume from the lack of alert that 1H is natural and > answer accordingly, because if it is a cue-bid, it isn't alertable either ! But, of course, it is not a cue-bid in the literal meaning of the term, as the opponents did not bid hearts below the one-level. That it may be defined systemically as the "equivalent" of a cue-bid doesn't make it one, nor make it non-alertable. > Most problematic : that conditional explanation will make apparent that > your bid meant hearts. That might be considered as UI to your partner, > just in case he forgot you're playing T-Walsh (maybe he alerted plain > Walsh or something else). > > So, the question is : are you compelled to remember RHO that 1H might be > artificial and partner that 1D is ? Or is there some way out ? -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Apr 16 17:13:10 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:13:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <534E9E06.603@aol.com> I may be a simpleton but why can't the theoretical 100% for each pair be calculated (of course it can) by multiplying the number of boards played using the top on each board. Against this compare the actual score, that is what % of the 100% score it is. Ciao, JE I don't do this in tournaments but, when necessary, use the Neuberg formula. I have not heard of Ascherman. What is it? Am 16.04.2014 15:50, schrieb Steve Willner: > On 2014-04-16 8:50 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: >> Nothing is said about how to convert the matchpoints to a percentage score, > No one needs to do this. > >> let alone how to do this in case of boards with different tops. > Another lacuna is what to do when contestants play differing numbers of > boards. > >> Is it not time that Ascherman and Neuberg are explicitly incorporated in >> the laws? > Perhaps there should be default rules in the Laws, but RAs should have > authority to adopt their own. There is no mathematical basis for > Ascherman/Neuberg (technically they are biased estimators), and I don't > know that anyone has a proper formula. Just as an example, present > arrangements for handling differing tops and differing numbers of boards > are contradictory. I think it should be possible to derive a proper > formula based on Stein's Paradox, but so far as I know, it hasn't been > done. In the meantime, Ascherman/Neuberg is a reasonable approximation. > > More on this subject is at > http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt > >> I have put some notes on this subject on the internet, showing that >> Neuberg and Ascherman are not all that difficult to understand, see >> http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/index_en.htm > I agree with you that they are not difficult to understand or apply. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Apr 16 18:20:51 2014 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (billk) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:20:51 +0800 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents Message-ID: My answer is that X is for penalties in hearts.? Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Alain Gottcheiner Date: To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents Hi all I'd like your advice on one situation which could happen (and already happened) in countries where some calls (like doubles and cues) aren't alertable. 1C*??? p??? 1D**??? 1H Dbl@ * classical in a 5-card majors framework ** T-Walsh (Hearts) @ you play support doubles (3 cards and a non-minimum) ; but of course here it doesn't make sense if 1H is natural, so it's plain penalties? (although there is arguably little difference in the type of hands which will double) You're the 1D bidder, and are asked by RHO about the double. How do you react ? You might of course say "it depends on the meaning of 1H, so please explain first and I'll tell you", but it will draw RHO's attention to the fact that 1H might in fact be artificial (some kind of take-out). You might say "if 1H is natural etc.", with the same effect. Alas, you may not assume from the lack of alert that 1H is natural and answer accordingly, because if it is a cue-bid, it isn't alertable either ! Most problematic : that conditional explanation will make apparent that your bid meant hearts. That might be considered as UI to your partner, just in case he forgot you're playing T-Walsh (maybe he alerted plain Walsh or something else). So, the question is : are you compelled to remember RHO that 1H might be artificial and partner that 1D is ? Or is there some way out ? Thank you for your help. ?? Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140416/6bd43f06/attachment-0001.html From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Wed Apr 16 18:36:53 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:36:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <534E9E06.603@aol.com> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> <534E9E06.603@aol.com> Message-ID: On 2014 Apr 16, at 11:13, Jeff Easterson wrote: > ... I have not heard of Ascherman. ... Nor had I. Here?s Herman de Wael?s writeup: . Tim From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Apr 16 18:53:44 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:53:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents In-Reply-To: <534E9640.3050702@verizon.net> References: <534E8578.9050802@ulb.ac.be> <534E9640.3050702@verizon.net> Message-ID: <534EB598.3000608@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-16 10:40 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > But, of course, it is not a cue-bid in the literal meaning of the > term, as the opponents did not bid hearts below the one-level. That may depend on your RA. For alerting purposes, the ACBL defines "cuebid" as "A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards." So 1H in the given auction would be a cuebid in the ACBL, and it would be alertable if natural and not alertable if artificial. It would not surprise me at all if regulations differ in Belgium, but it's a flaw in the regulations if neither natural nor artificial needs to be alerted. > That it may be defined systemically as the "equivalent" of a cue-bid > doesn't make it one, nor make it non-alertable. The actual meaning plus RA alerting regulations determine whether it's alertable or not. What you call it in your system notes doesn't matter. From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 16 20:18:31 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:18:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> <534E9E06.603@aol.com> Message-ID: <000601cf59a0$5950f130$0bf2d390$@online.no> In an event with N tables the "standard" top is 2*(N-1) and bottom is zero. However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the top is (N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). If the Neuberg or Ascherman formulae are rewritten to work on such scores (relative to average) one will discover that Neuberg and Ascherman are indeed identical and also very simple to use: The scores are just divided by the number of tables for which they apply and multiplied by the number of tables for which they are to be adjusted. So a top score in an event for 20 tables with one table "missing" is adjusted from +18 to +18*(20/19) = 18,95 > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Timothy N. Hill > Sendt: 16. april 2014 18:37 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman > > On 2014 Apr 16, at 11:13, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > ... I have not heard of Ascherman. ... > > Nor had I. Here?s Herman de Wael?s writeup: > . > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Apr 16 22:41:12 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:41:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <000601cf59a0$5950f130$0bf2d390$@online.no> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> <534E9E06.603@aol.com> <000601cf59a0$5950f130$0bf2d390$@online.no> Message-ID: <534EEAE8.50207@btinternet.com> On 16/04/2014 19:18, Sven Pran wrote: > > However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the top is > (N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). I'd be surprised if this is true, except in a geographically localised context. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 17 00:12:03 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:12:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Marvin French [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A72DE8@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." Richard Hills, October 2009: >>On a tangential issue, why this emphasis on the non-offending side? >>As a member of the offending side I have frequently requested an >>adjusted score against my side's interests to comply with Law 79A2: >> >>"A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick >>that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his >>opponents could not lose." Marvin French, October 2009: >A current member of the ACBL BoD, a pro then playing with a >customer, accepted my partner's concession of a trick when the trick >could not be lost. As an inattentive dummy I missed that. Later the >pro told me, "If they give, I take." Not a very good role model. Hypothetical clarified 2015 Law 72B2: "There is no immediate* obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and also see Law 62A)." * Footnote - If the infraction by one's own side gains a trick or tricks, then Law 79A2 demands that one must draw attention to the infraction at the appropriate time. For example, if one's own side has unintentionally created a damaging revoke, one can defer summoning the Director until after a non-offending opponent has called on a subsequent deal (Law 64B4) or after the round has ended (Law 64B5). UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140416/626a2937/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 17 00:40:22 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:40:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <534EEAE8.50207@btinternet.com> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> <534E9E06.603@aol.com> <000601cf59a0$5950f130$0bf2d390$@online.no> <534EEAE8.50207@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000601cf59c4$df4aff50$9de0fdf0$@online.no> > Gordon Rainsford > On 16/04/2014 19:18, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the > > top is > > (N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). > I'd be surprised if this is true, except in a geographically localised context. [Sven Pran] I agree with you where they score with paper and pen, and I should have limited "most events" to "most events using computer assisted scoring". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 17 03:18:05 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:18:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A72FB9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Alain Gottcheiner: [big snip] >You're the 1D bidder, and are asked by RHO about the double. > >How do you react ? > >You might of course say "it depends on the meaning of 1H, so please >explain first and I'll tell you" [big snip] Richard Hills: RHO explains. "We have neither an explicit nor an implicit partnership understanding about the 1H call; it is equally likely to be either natural or unnatural." How do you react then? In a Bridge World editorial Edgar Kaplan observed that it was important to have a default option for the meaning of your call, rather than being wholly reliant upon the opponents having a partnership understanding about the meaning of their previous call in an obscure auction. Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): "You Opinioners are always asking about class and status. One would think you'd know all about it by now. But very well. Today, since everyone is equal, there is only one class. The middle class. The only question then is--to what portion of the middle class does one belong? High, low, or middle?" UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140417/a8d51289/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Apr 17 08:17:34 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:17:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <000601cf59c4$df4aff50$9de0fdf0$@online.no> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> <534E9E06.603@aol.com> <000601cf59a0$5950f130$0bf2d390$@online.no> <534EEAE8.50207@btinternet.com> <000601cf59c4$df4aff50$9de0fdf0$@online.no> Message-ID: <534F71FE.1080507@btinternet.com> On 16/04/2014 23:40, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford >> On 16/04/2014 19:18, Sven Pran wrote: >>> However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the >>> top is >>> (N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). >> I'd be surprised if this is true, except in a geographically localised > context. > > [Sven Pran] > I agree with you where they score with paper and pen, and I should have > limited "most events" to "most events using computer assisted scoring". > Again, no, unless you are talking about underlying calculations, but even then I'd be surprised if they did that and then converted it back. I have never seen a computer traveller that did this, which is why I thought it might be a local thing, maybe something that Norway's most popular scroing program does? The one Scandinavian program I have used, Magic Contest, doesn't do this. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Apr 17 08:44:01 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:44:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <534F71FE.1080507@btinternet.com> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> <534E9E06.603@aol.com> <000601cf59a0$5950f130$0bf2d390$@online.no> <534EEAE8.50207@btinternet.com> <000601cf59c4$df4aff50$9de0fdf0$@online.no> <534F71FE.1080507@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <534F7831.90004@btinternet.com> A further thought: do you still talk about getting a "zero" when you get a bad board? On 17/04/2014 07:17, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 16/04/2014 23:40, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Gordon Rainsford >>> On 16/04/2014 19:18, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the >>>> top is >>>> (N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). >>> I'd be surprised if this is true, except in a geographically localised >> context. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> I agree with you where they score with paper and pen, and I should have >> limited "most events" to "most events using computer assisted scoring". >> > Again, no, unless you are talking about underlying calculations, but > even then I'd be surprised if they did that and then converted it back. > I have never seen a computer traveller that did this, which is why I > thought it might be a local thing, maybe something that Norway's most > popular scroing program does? The one Scandinavian program I have used, > Magic Contest, doesn't do this. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Apr 17 09:28:10 2014 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:28:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140417072927.D8A9420582F@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Very interesting! Does this method have a name, and is it documented somewhere? In the notation of http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/Ascherman_en.html it amounts to using S = 2k + m - n instead of eq. (9), and then S/n scales properly with the size of the field. At 00:12 17-4-2014, you wrote: >From: "Sven Pran" >Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:18:31 +0200 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman > >In an event with N tables the "standard" top is 2*(N-1) and bottom is zero. > >However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the top is >(N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). > >If the Neuberg or Ascherman formulae are rewritten to work on such scores >(relative to average) one will discover that Neuberg and Ascherman are >indeed identical and also very simple to use: The scores are just divided by >the number of tables for which they apply and multiplied by the number of >tables for which they are to be adjusted. > >So a top score in an event for 20 tables with one table "missing" is >adjusted from +18 to +18*(20/19) = 18,95 From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 17 09:39:09 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:39:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <534F7831.90004@btinternet.com> References: <20140416125022.B49E5E78C8E@spamfilter2.webreus.nl> <534E8AB3.4020400@nhcc.net> <534E9E06.603@aol.com> <000601cf59a0$5950f130$0bf2d390$@online.no> <534EEAE8.50207@btinternet.com> <000601cf59c4$df4aff50$9de0fdf0$@online.no> <534F71FE.1080507@btinternet.com> <534F7831.90004@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000c01cf5a10$30ae9c80$920bd580$@online.no> 1: Magic Contest is indeed the scoring program used (universally) in Norway and MP scorings/results are always presented as +/- relative to average. However, I must make one reservation: I have not been involved in Mitchell movements and paper travellers for years (since long before we got MC) so I can only assume that the same applies there. 2: When players talk about getting "zero" it usually means an average, but when they say "a zero" (in disgust or with a laugh) it can also imply a rock bottom. The usual comment on a bad board (or round) is simply "minus". > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 17. april 2014 08:44 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman > > A further thought: do you still talk about getting a "zero" when you get a bad > board? > > > On 17/04/2014 07:17, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 16/04/2014 23:40, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Gordon Rainsford > >>> On 16/04/2014 19:18, Sven Pran wrote: > >>>> However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the > >>>> top is > >>>> (N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). > >>> I'd be surprised if this is true, except in a geographically localised > >> context. > >> > >> [Sven Pran] > >> I agree with you where they score with paper and pen, and I should have > >> limited "most events" to "most events using computer assisted scoring". > >> > > Again, no, unless you are talking about underlying calculations, but > > even then I'd be surprised if they did that and then converted it back. > > I have never seen a computer traveller that did this, which is why I > > thought it might be a local thing, maybe something that Norway's most > > popular scroing program does? The one Scandinavian program I have used, > > Magic Contest, doesn't do this. > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 17 09:49:27 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:49:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman In-Reply-To: <20140417072927.D8A9420582F@spamfilter.webreus.nl> References: <20140417072927.D8A9420582F@spamfilter.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <000d01cf5a11$b8059070$2810b150$@online.no> I looked up your reference and found (8) which is precisely the formula we use with scores relative to average. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Peter > Smulders > Sendt: 17. april 2014 09:28 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman > > Very interesting! > Does this method have a name, and is it documented somewhere? > In the notation of > http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/Ascherman_en.html > it amounts to using S = 2k + m - n > instead of eq. (9), and then S/n scales properly with the size of the field. > > At 00:12 17-4-2014, you wrote: > >From: "Sven Pran" > >Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:18:31 +0200 > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman > > > >In an event with N tables the "standard" top is 2*(N-1) and bottom is zero. > > > >However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the top > >is > >(N-1) and bottom is -(N-1). > > > >If the Neuberg or Ascherman formulae are rewritten to work on such > >scores (relative to average) one will discover that Neuberg and > >Ascherman are indeed identical and also very simple to use: The scores > >are just divided by the number of tables for which they apply and > >multiplied by the number of tables for which they are to be adjusted. > > > >So a top score in an event for 20 tables with one table "missing" is > >adjusted from +18 to +18*(20/19) = 18,95 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 15:03:46 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:03:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents In-Reply-To: <534EB598.3000608@nhcc.net> References: <534E8578.9050802@ulb.ac.be> <534E9640.3050702@verizon.net> <534EB598.3000608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <535122B2.9090309@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/04/2014 18:53, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2014-04-16 10:40 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> But, of course, it is not a cue-bid in the literal meaning of the >> term, as the opponents did not bid hearts below the one-level. > That may depend on your RA. For alerting purposes, the ACBL defines > "cuebid" as "A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally > or in which he has shown four or more cards." So 1H in the given > auction would be a cuebid in the ACBL, and it would be alertable if > natural and not alertable if artificial. Whence I assume artificial, and tell my RHO "three-card support". He'll believe it's support of diamonds, which will lead to many problems. Or I say "three-card support of hearts" and awaken him. And of course it will probably have been natural, so the explanation will be wrong (parner might also have four), and I'll have some explaining to do ... This is why I much more prefer "alert if artificial" for suit-bids. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 15:06:42 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:06:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A72FB9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A72FB9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53512362.6070205@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/04/2014 3:18, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Alain Gottcheiner: > [big snip] > >You're the 1D bidder, and are asked by RHO about the double. > > > >How do you react ? > > > >You might of course say "it depends on the meaning of 1H, so please > >explain first and I'll tell you" > [big snip] > Richard Hills: > RHO explains. "We have neither an explicit nor an implicit partnership > understanding about the 1H call; it is equally likely to be either natural > or unnatural." > How do you react then? > In a Bridge World editorial Edgar Kaplan observed that it was important > to have a default option for the meaning of your call, rather than being > wholly reliant upon the opponents having a partnership understanding > about the meaning of their previous call in an obscure auction. AG : strongly disagree. I want to be allowed e.g. to play SOS redoubles over penalty doubles and strenth-showing (or lead-showing) doubles over take-out doubles, obscure auction or not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140418/d77c18f8/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Apr 19 04:04:26 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 22:04:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents Message-ID: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> Nothing very profound here, but these may be amusing. I'll welcome all comments, but don't feel obliged to comment on all three if you have opinions on fewer. Please say if your answer would differ between a club game and a tournament. For extra credit :-), guess which player I was or whether I was not involved at all (thus five choices for each). Compass directions may have been changed to protect the guilty. 1. The Green Card West is dealer and is studying his cards intently. East puts a pass card on the table. South picks up the pass card and gives it back to East. East is relieved, North is indifferent, and West is oblivious. (That last would normally be a strong clue that I was West, but in this case it's not so.) 2. The Relays South has opened a strong club and is relaying for more information by making the cheapest available bid. North is describing shape and strength via artificial bids but has a _fejlgreb_ and wants to change his call under L25A. The Director takes North away from the table to sort it out, whereupon _West_ asks South whether the auction so far has revealed North's exact shape. A sidelight is the Director's ruling. Apparently the ACBL has a guideline that step responses are normally "intended" and therefore are not changeable under L25A unless there is strong evidence of a mechanical problem. What do people think of this guideline? 3. The Quick Dummy This one has some actual Laws content. The auction is over with South to become declarer. East leads face up out of turn. North immediately puts the dummy down before anyone has drawn attention to the LOOT. The mechanical ruling is obvious: L54C says that the lead is accepted, and L54B1 says the play goes in normal order. The question is whether North has committed an irregularity. If so, L23 could apply. However, L41D says nothing about the opening lead being correct, and North argues he has followed correct procedure. Which Law, if any, has North broken or not followed? "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Apr 19 09:00:57 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:00:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Saturday, 19 April 2014 12:04 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Three incidents > > Nothing very profound here, but these may be amusing. I'll welcome all > comments, but don't feel obliged to comment on all three if you have > opinions on fewer. Please say if your answer would differ between a > club game and a tournament. > > For extra credit :-), guess which player I was or whether I was not > involved at all (thus five choices for each). Compass directions may > have been changed to protect the guilty. > > 1. The Green Card > > West is dealer and is studying his cards intently. East puts a pass > card on the table. South picks up the pass card and gives it back to > East. East is relieved, North is indifferent, and West is oblivious. > (That last would normally be a strong clue that I was West, but in this > case it's not so.) > SW is South. Straightforward pass out of turn, not accepted. Pass to be repeated. West not seeing is irrelevant. > 2. The Relays > > South has opened a strong club and is relaying for more information by > making the cheapest available bid. North is describing shape and > strength via artificial bids but has a _fejlgreb_ and wants to change > his call under L25A. The Director takes North away from the table to > sort it out, whereupon _West_ asks South whether the auction so far has > revealed North's exact shape. > > A sidelight is the Director's ruling. Apparently the ACBL has a > guideline that step responses are normally "intended" and therefore are > not changeable under L25A unless there is strong evidence of a > mechanical problem. What do people think of this guideline? > SW is south. Absolutely correct not L25A territory. However West may like to accept change of bid under L25B if he thinks further valuable information is coming. Otherwise, L25B territory and UI etc. > 3. The Quick Dummy > > This one has some actual Laws content. The auction is over with South > to become declarer. East leads face up out of turn. North immediately > puts the dummy down before anyone has drawn attention to the LOOT. > > The mechanical ruling is obvious: L54C says that the lead is accepted, > and L54B1 says the play goes in normal order. The question is whether > North has committed an irregularity. If so, L23 could apply. However, > L41D says nothing about the opening lead being correct, and North argues > he has followed correct procedure. Which Law, if any, has North broken > or not followed? > > "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not > limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." SW is South. Lead must be accepted as a card of dummy has been exposed, but L23 may well apply. This is because dummy should not spread his hand before the director has has been called (infraction of L54). Cheers, and Happy Easter, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From posundelin at yahoo.se Sat Apr 19 13:24:53 2014 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:24:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements Message-ID: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Rho opens 1 spade I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and bids 2 clubs after pass by Lho- I alert... and say what? 1. Pass or correct 2. Stayman (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? Easy? What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. ? ?Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct.? B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten ? ??Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman C -?I am not sure who has forgotten ? ? ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140419/7b4ea286/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Apr 19 14:06:16 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:06:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> In a non-HdW-school world the answer should be: A: ?poc? ? and bid 2H (taking it as Stayman) B: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H C: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H von PO Sundelin Rho opens 1 spade I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and bids 2 clubs after pass by Lho- I alert... and say what? 1. Pass or correct 2. Stayman (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? Easy? What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman C - I am not sure who has forgotten ??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140419/4f9f745a/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 19 15:05:47 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 15:05:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <535274AB.70200@skynet.be> Hello PO, You've just put your first steps towards the De Wael School. Welcome! Herman. PO Sundelin schreef: > Rho opens 1 spade > I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) > Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and bids > 2 clubs after pass by Lho- > > I alert... and say what? > 1. Pass or correct > 2. Stayman > > (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) > In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? > > Easy? > What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? > > A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. > B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman > C - I am not sure who has forgotten > ??? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 19 15:10:08 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 15:10:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> I'm glad you're so confident, Peter, but could you explain me why you do what you do in case C? And how you are going to explain to the director what you did in case A, when in fact he cannot know if you're in case A or C. But we've gone through all this once before. The mere fact that a player of PO's stature is uncertain what he should do is proof enough that the majority view cannot be the correct one - players feel there is something else to be done, and they don't mind doing a HdW-school action. Only directors on blml mind this, and they cannot explain why that needs to be so, except by saying that if it's better for the player, it must be illegal. Which is a ludicrous reason, of course. Herman. Peter Eidt schreef: > In a non-HdW-school world the answer should be: > > A: ?poc? ? and bid 2H (taking it as Stayman) > > B: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > C: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > *von *PO Sundelin > > Rho opens 1 spade > > I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) > > Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and bids > 2 clubs after pass by Lho- > > I alert... and say what? > > 1. Pass or correct > > 2. Stayman > > (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) > > In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? > > Easy? > > What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? > > A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. > > B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman > > C - I am not sure who has forgotten > > ??? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Apr 19 15:16:41 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 15:16:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002001cf5bd1$9b7cbed0$d2763c70$@t-online.de> Herman, of course you know, that the reason for doing so is, that the WBF LC has said we (the players) must do so. ;-) Regards Peter > I'm glad you're so confident, Peter, but could you explain me why you do > what you do in case C? > And how you are going to explain to the director what you did in case A, > when in fact he cannot know if you're in case A or C. > But we've gone through all this once before. > The mere fact that a player of PO's stature is uncertain what he should do is > proof enough that the majority view cannot be the correct one - players feel > there is something else to be done, and they don't mind doing a HdW-school > action. > Only directors on blml mind this, and they cannot explain why that needs to > be so, except by saying that if it's better for the player, it must be illegal. > Which is a ludicrous reason, of course. > Herman. > > Peter Eidt schreef: > > In a non-HdW-school world the answer should be: > > > > A: ?poc? ? and bid 2H (taking it as Stayman) > > > > B: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > C: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > *von *PO Sundelin > > > > Rho opens 1 spade > > > > I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) > > > > Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and > > bids > > 2 clubs after pass by Lho- > > > > I alert... and say what? > > > > 1. Pass or correct > > > > 2. Stayman > > > > (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) > > > > In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? > > > > Easy? > > > > What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? > > > > A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. > > > > B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman > > > > C - I am not sure who has forgotten > > > > ??? From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 19 16:00:05 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:00:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001a01cf5bd7$ab966450$02c32cf0$@online.no> The correct answer is that PO should do exactly the same as he would have done playing with screens so that he has no knowledge of partner's alert(s) or explanation(s) to opponents. If PO believes that his 1NT bid is a natural 15-18 NT bid and (unaware of partner's alert and explanation) that the 2C bid by partner is Stayman then he should act accordingly , alert 2C, explain it as Stayman and bid 2H. Opponents may be lead completely astray, never mind. It is the Director's job (at the proper time) to rectify any damage to opponents because of this. Sven > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 19. april 2014 15:10 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements > > I'm glad you're so confident, Peter, but could you explain me why you do what > you do in case C? > And how you are going to explain to the director what you did in case A, when in > fact he cannot know if you're in case A or C. > But we've gone through all this once before. > The mere fact that a player of PO's stature is uncertain what he should do is > proof enough that the majority view cannot be the correct one - players feel > there is something else to be done, and they don't mind doing a HdW-school > action. > Only directors on blml mind this, and they cannot explain why that needs to be > so, except by saying that if it's better for the player, it must be illegal. Which is > a ludicrous reason, of course. > Herman. > > Peter Eidt schreef: > > In a non-HdW-school world the answer should be: > > > > A: ?poc? ? and bid 2H (taking it as Stayman) > > > > B: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > C: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > *von *PO Sundelin > > > > Rho opens 1 spade > > > > I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) > > > > Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and > > bids > > 2 clubs after pass by Lho- > > > > I alert... and say what? > > > > 1. Pass or correct > > > > 2. Stayman > > > > (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) > > > > In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? > > > > Easy? > > > > What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? > > > > A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. > > > > B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman > > > > C - I am not sure who has forgotten > > > > ??? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Apr 19 16:22:40 2014 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:22:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <001a01cf5bd7$ab966450$02c32cf0$@online.no> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> <001a01cf5bd7$ab966450$02c32cf0$@online.no> Message-ID: <002201cf5bda$d2feb620$78fc2260$@t-online.de> von Sven Pran > The correct answer is that PO should do exactly the same as he would have > done playing with screens so that he has no knowledge of partner's alert(s) > or explanation(s) to opponents. > > If PO believes that his 1NT bid is a natural 15-18 NT bid and (unaware of > partner's alert and explanation) that the 2C bid by partner is Stayman then he > should act accordingly , alert 2C, explain it as Stayman and bid 2H. I disagree partly. If PO believes (in first instance) that his 1NT bid is natural and then becomes aware, that the partnership agreement is indeed raptor, then PO is under the obligation of Law 40B6a to explain his partner's 2C according to his system (poc) and to act according to his erroneous view (1NT being natural). This because partner's explanation is UI for him. The screen-approach (or what-would-I-have-done-without-getting-the-UI) is not enough in face-to-face play. The Laws say that you have to carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI and this is not equal to just ignore the UI. > Opponents may be lead completely astray, never mind. It is the Director's job > (at the proper time) to rectify any damage to opponents because of this. > Sven > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > > av Herman De Wael > > Sendt: 19. april 2014 15:10 > > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements > > > > I'm glad you're so confident, Peter, but could you explain me why you > > do > what > > you do in case C? > > And how you are going to explain to the director what you did in case > > A, > when in > > fact he cannot know if you're in case A or C. > > But we've gone through all this once before. > > The mere fact that a player of PO's stature is uncertain what he > > should do > is > > proof enough that the majority view cannot be the correct one - > > players > feel > > there is something else to be done, and they don't mind doing a > > HdW-school action. > > Only directors on blml mind this, and they cannot explain why that > > needs > to be > > so, except by saying that if it's better for the player, it must be > illegal. Which is > > a ludicrous reason, of course. > > Herman. > > > > Peter Eidt schreef: > > > In a non-HdW-school world the answer should be: > > > > > > A: ?poc? ? and bid 2H (taking it as Stayman) > > > > > > B: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > > > C: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > > > *von *PO Sundelin > > > > > > Rho opens 1 spade > > > > > > I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) > > > > > > Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and > > > bids > > > 2 clubs after pass by Lho- > > > > > > I alert... and say what? > > > > > > 1. Pass or correct > > > > > > 2. Stayman > > > > > > (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) > > > > > > In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? > > > > > > Easy? > > > > > > What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? > > > > > > A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. > > > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. > > > > > > B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten > > > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman > > > > > > C - I am not sure who has forgotten > > > > > > ??? From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 19 18:23:57 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:23:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <002201cf5bda$d2feb620$78fc2260$@t-online.de> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> <001a01cf5bd7$ab966450$02c32cf0$@online.no> <002201cf5bda$d2feb620$78fc2260$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001cf5beb$c68152c0$5383f840$@online.no> If PO as a result of his partner's alert and explanation becomes aware that his own understanding of the partnership agreements was erratic he must maintain this (incorrect) understanding. He is free to become aware of his error (and take corresponding actions) _only_ if this awareness is (convincingly) not influenced by partner's actions other than his legal calls. The screen-approach is a simplified guideline for a player to know what information is legal for him and what information is illegal and therefore may forbid him from realizing his own errors. Sven > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Peter > Eidt > Sendt: 19. april 2014 16:23 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements > > von Sven Pran > > The correct answer is that PO should do exactly the same as he would > > have done playing with screens so that he has no knowledge of > > partner's > alert(s) > > or explanation(s) to opponents. > > > > If PO believes that his 1NT bid is a natural 15-18 NT bid and (unaware > > of partner's alert and explanation) that the 2C bid by partner is > > Stayman > then he > > should act accordingly , alert 2C, explain it as Stayman and bid 2H. > > I disagree partly. > > If PO believes (in first instance) that his 1NT bid is natural and then becomes > aware, that the partnership agreement is indeed raptor, then PO is under the > obligation of Law 40B6a to explain his partner's 2C according to his system > (poc) and to act according to his erroneous view (1NT being natural). This > because partner's explanation is UI for him. > > The screen-approach (or what-would-I-have-done-without-getting-the-UI) is not > enough in face-to-face play. The Laws say that you have to carefully avoid > taking any advantage from the UI and this is not equal to just ignore the UI. > > > Opponents may be lead completely astray, never mind. It is the > > Director's > job > > (at the proper time) to rectify any damage to opponents because of this. > > Sven > > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > > > av Herman De Wael > > > Sendt: 19. april 2014 15:10 > > > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements > > > > > > I'm glad you're so confident, Peter, but could you explain me why > > > you do > > what > > > you do in case C? > > > And how you are going to explain to the director what you did in > > > case A, > > when in > > > fact he cannot know if you're in case A or C. > > > But we've gone through all this once before. > > > The mere fact that a player of PO's stature is uncertain what he > > > should do > > is > > > proof enough that the majority view cannot be the correct one - > > > players > > feel > > > there is something else to be done, and they don't mind doing a > > > HdW-school action. > > > Only directors on blml mind this, and they cannot explain why that > > > needs > > to be > > > so, except by saying that if it's better for the player, it must be > > illegal. Which is > > > a ludicrous reason, of course. > > > Herman. > > > > > > Peter Eidt schreef: > > > > In a non-HdW-school world the answer should be: > > > > > > > > A: ?poc? ? and bid 2H (taking it as Stayman) > > > > > > > > B: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > > > > > C: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H > > > > > > > > *von *PO Sundelin > > > > > > > > Rho opens 1 spade > > > > > > > > I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) > > > > > > > > Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and > > > > bids > > > > 2 clubs after pass by Lho- > > > > > > > > I alert... and say what? > > > > > > > > 1. Pass or correct > > > > > > > > 2. Stayman > > > > > > > > (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) > > > > > > > > In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? > > > > > > > > Easy? > > > > > > > > What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? > > > > > > > > A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. > > > > > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. > > > > > > > > B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten > > > > > > > > Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman > > > > > > > > C - I am not sure who has forgotten > > > > > > > > ??? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 19 22:41:10 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:41:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 03:00:57 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Steve Willner >> Sent: Saturday, 19 April 2014 12:04 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] Three incidents >> >> Nothing very profound here, but these may be amusing. I'll welcome > all >> comments, but don't feel obliged to comment on all three if you have >> opinions on fewer. Please say if your answer would differ between a >> club game and a tournament. >> >> For extra credit :-), guess which player I was or whether I was not >> involved at all (thus five choices for each). Compass directions may >> have been changed to protect the guilty. >> >> 1. The Green Card >> >> West is dealer and is studying his cards intently. East puts a pass >> card on the table. South picks up the pass card and gives it back to >> East. East is relieved, North is indifferent, and West is oblivious. >> (That last would normally be a strong clue that I was West, but in > this >> case it's not so.) >> > SW is South. Straightforward pass out of turn, not accepted. > Pass to be repeated. West not seeing is irrelevant. > >> 2. The Relays >> >> South has opened a strong club and is relaying for more information by >> making the cheapest available bid. North is describing shape and >> strength via artificial bids but has a _fejlgreb_ and wants to change >> his call under L25A. The Director takes North away from the table to >> sort it out, whereupon _West_ asks South whether the auction so far > has >> revealed North's exact shape. >> >> A sidelight is the Director's ruling. Apparently the ACBL has a >> guideline that step responses are normally "intended" and therefore > are >> not changeable under L25A unless there is strong evidence of a >> mechanical problem. What do people think of this guideline? >> > SW is south. Absolutely correct not L25A territory. However > West may like to accept change of bid under L25B if he thinks > further valuable information is coming. Otherwise, L25B > territory and UI etc. Agreeing with not applying 25A. Far too many claims of unintended occur for step responses. Either the answers to Blackwood are exceedingly slippery and difficult to pull out of the box, or... > >> 3. The Quick Dummy >> >> This one has some actual Laws content. The auction is over with South >> to become declarer. East leads face up out of turn. North > immediately >> puts the dummy down before anyone has drawn attention to the LOOT. >> >> The mechanical ruling is obvious: L54C says that the lead is accepted, >> and L54B1 says the play goes in normal order. The question is whether >> North has committed an irregularity. If so, L23 could apply. > However, >> L41D says nothing about the opening lead being correct, and North > argues >> he has followed correct procedure. Which Law, if any, has North > broken >> or not followed? >> >> "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but > not >> limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." > > SW is South. Lead must be accepted as a card of dummy has been > exposed, but L23 may well apply. This is because dummy > should not spread his hand before the director has has been > called (infraction of L54). Agree, this is not proper procedure. L23 needs to be considered, or else you are allowing dummy to accept the lead. > > Cheers, and Happy Easter, > Tony (Sydney) > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Apr 19 22:46:57 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:46:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-19 3:00 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: Thanks, Tony. I think we all know the proper "mechanical" ruling in these cases, but I'm curious what people think of the oddities. >> 3. The Quick Dummy > Lead must be accepted as a card of dummy has been > exposed, Yes, that's obvious. > but L23 may well apply. This is because dummy > should not spread his hand before the director has has been > called (infraction of L54). Sorry, I don't see that "should not" anywhere in L54. What am I missing? No attention has been called to the irregularity, so L9B doesn't apply, and L9A3 specifically says dummy may not draw attention. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Apr 19 22:52:23 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:52:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5352E207.9050300@nhcc.net> >> 3. The Quick Dummy On 2014-04-19 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > L23 needs to be considered, or else > you are allowing dummy to accept the lead. I agree with the principle, but I'm having trouble finding anything that allows us to apply it. I'll go a little further: if nobody draws attention in a reasonable time, I think dummy is obliged to spread his cards. Otherwise dummy is illegally drawing attention in violation of L9A3. It's not the spreading of cards that's the problem in my view but rather the quickness with which it was done. But what specifically was the irregularity? A contrary view would say the declaring side is entitled to take best advantage of the LOOT, so dummy has done nothing at all wrong. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 20 02:23:14 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:23:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5352E207.9050300@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E207.9050300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:52:23 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >>> 3. The Quick Dummy > > On 2014-04-19 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> L23 needs to be considered, or else >> you are allowing dummy to accept the lead. > > I agree with the principle, but I'm having trouble finding anything that > allows us to apply it. I'll go a little further: if nobody draws > attention in a reasonable time, I think dummy is obliged to spread his > cards. Otherwise dummy is illegally drawing attention in violation of > L9A3. I don't think silence counts as drawing attention. In this case, everyone is sitting there silently. Suppose declarer calls for a nonexistent card from dummy. I think dummy's obligation is to sit there silently. > It's not the spreading of cards that's the problem in my view but > rather the quickness with which it was done. But what specifically was > the irregularity? "Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy?s hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn)" So I think he is not entitled to spread his hand and doing so is a violation of proper procedure. > > A contrary view would say the declaring side is entitled to take best > advantage of the LOOT, so dummy has done nothing at all wrong. We could give dummy this right, but I don't think people want to do this. And it doesn't fit L54 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Apr 20 03:03:39 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:03:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <000001cf5beb$c68152c0$5383f840$@online.no> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> <001a01cf5bd7$ab966450$02c32cf0$@online.no> <002201cf5bda$d2feb620$78fc2260$@t-online.de> <000001cf5beb$c68152c0$5383f840$@online.no> Message-ID: <53531CEB.9050501@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-19 12:23 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > If PO as a result of his partner's alert and explanation becomes aware that > his own understanding of the partnership agreements was erratic he must > maintain this (incorrect) understanding. For purposes of calls and plays. There is a WBFLC interpretation that the player is obliged to give correct explanations of partnership agreements, no matter how he comes to be aware of those agreements. From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Sun Apr 20 05:49:33 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 23:49:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2B3EED76-A236-4FC0-9D6C-D77B9C75674A@wesleyan.edu> On 2014 Apr 18, at 22:04, Steve Willner wrote: > ... South has opened a strong club and is relaying for more information by > making the cheapest available bid. North is describing shape and > strength via artificial bids but has a _fejlgreb_ and wants to change > his call under L25A. Watertown, April 6, round 7, S: CT, N: NK? ;) > The Director takes North away from the table to > sort it out, whereupon _West_ asks South whether the auction so far has > revealed North's exact shape. > > A sidelight is the Director's ruling. Apparently the ACBL has a > guideline that step responses are normally "intended" and therefore are > not changeable under L25A unless there is strong evidence of a > mechanical problem. What do people think of this guideline? ?The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical irregularity has occurred.? When the director looks at a player?s hand, it?s often obvious that there was a slip of the thumb rather than a slip of the mind. When it?s not obvious, the director shouldn't allow a change. It?s rarely obvious whether a mistaken step reply was a slip of the thumb or a slip of the mind. I appreciate having a pretty clear guideline that allows me to make and explain a 25A1 ruling without having to decide or say whether I think the player is telling the truth! This didn?t figure into my ruling, but you might be amused to know that this same player had given a mistaken reply to a relay when playing against me a couple weeks before. She didn?t notice that error at the time--her partner pointed it out in the postmortem--and it didn?t prevent him from bidding an excellent slam that our teammates missed. > This one has some actual Laws content. The auction is over with South to become declarer. East leads face up out of turn. North immediately puts the dummy down before anyone has drawn attention to the LOOT. ... The question is whether North has committed an irregularity. If so, L23 could apply. ... North argues he has followed correct procedure. Which Law, if any, has North broken or not followed? None. He?s followed 54A: ?After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy.? In any case, for the purposes of Law 23, EW is most definitely not the non-offending side. Tim From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Sun Apr 20 06:18:19 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 00:18:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <2B3EED76-A236-4FC0-9D6C-D77B9C75674A@wesleyan.edu> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <2B3EED76-A236-4FC0-9D6C-D77B9C75674A@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <6FDB6AB7-DA30-41A9-8A95-815618AAC147@wesleyan.edu> > On Apr 19, 2014, at 23:49, "Timothy N. Hill" wrote: > > ?The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical irregularity has occurred.? When the director looks at a player?s hand, it?s often obvious that there was a slip of the thumb rather than a slip of the mind. When it?s not obvious, the director shouldn't allow a change. It?s rarely obvious whether a mistaken step reply was a slip of the thumb or a slip of the mind. > > I appreciate having a pretty clear guideline that allows me to make and explain a 25A1 ruling without having to decide or say whether I think the player is telling the truth! > > This didn?t figure into my ruling, but you might be amused to know that this same player had given a mistaken reply to a relay when playing against me a couple weeks before. She didn?t notice that error at the time--her partner pointed it out in the postmortem--and it didn?t prevent him from bidding an excellent slam that our teammates missed. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2330 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140420/9137972b/attachment-0001.bin From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Sun Apr 20 06:25:32 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 00:25:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <2B3EED76-A236-4FC0-9D6C-D77B9C75674A@wesleyan.edu> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <2B3EED76-A236-4FC0-9D6C-D77B9C75674A@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: P.S. re the recent thread on written bidding: If you've directed games with written bidding, how often have you had players claim they wrote an "inadvertent call"? On Apr 19, 2014, at 23:49, "Timothy N. Hill" wrote: > ?The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical irregularity has occurred.? When the director looks at a player?s hand, it?s often obvious that there was a slip of the thumb rather than a slip of the mind. When it?s not obvious, the director shouldn't allow a change. It?s rarely obvious whether a mistaken step reply was a slip of the thumb or a slip of the mind. > > I appreciate having a pretty clear guideline that allows me to make and explain a 25A1 ruling without having to decide or say whether I think the player is telling the truth! > > This didn?t figure into my ruling, but you might be amused to know that this same player had given a mistaken reply to a relay when playing against me a couple weeks before. She didn?t notice that error at the time--her partner pointed it out in the postmortem--and it didn?t prevent him from bidding an excellent slam that our teammates missed. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2330 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140420/41198027/attachment.bin From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 20 07:57:32 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:57:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <002001cf5bd1$9b7cbed0$d2763c70$@t-online.de> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> <002001cf5bd1$9b7cbed0$d2763c70$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <535361CC.9010006@skynet.be> Peter Eidt schreef: > Herman, > > of course you know, that the reason for doing so is, that the WBF LC has > said we (the players) must do so. > ;-) > First of all, Peter, You know this is not true. You believe it to be true, but it is not. The WBF LC may have come down on your side of the argument, but they have not, in so many words, told the players what to do. Look it up and provide a link to the reference is you find something. But secondly, and most importantly: PO describes three situations, depending on what he believes the agreement to be. That's just his belief, and he asks us what he should do. Now if he's clever (and I know he is), he'll figure out that giving the consistent answer will work to his benefit. You yourself say that this is what he should do in situation A, the one in which he is certain that his partner is correct. Now suppose PO tells you he's certain his partner was correct, and yet you find that the agreement was, after all, the way PO intended it (you may simply do that out of lack of evidence to the contrary). What are you going to do now? Call PO a liar? How are you going to prove that? Rule against him nevertheless? OK, but based on what? Misinformation? Of course, but PO was prepared for that. Missing UI? Nice one. Unless the WBF LC issues an order to act non-dWS even when certain that partner's explanation was correct, there is not a lot you can do. And such an order would be reversing L25F entirely. Something which the WBF LC, in the same minute of Shanghai as you probably looked up higher, explicitely said they did not want to do. The situation you are creating is the following: -partner misexplains -I keep quiet -opponents ask "really?" -I say no There is no reason for a law which tells me not to say something fi another law tells me to say that same thing when asked. Herman. > Regards > Peter > >> I'm glad you're so confident, Peter, but could you explain me why you do >> what you do in case C? >> And how you are going to explain to the director what you did in case A, >> when in fact he cannot know if you're in case A or C. >> But we've gone through all this once before. >> The mere fact that a player of PO's stature is uncertain what he should do > is >> proof enough that the majority view cannot be the correct one - players > feel >> there is something else to be done, and they don't mind doing a HdW-school >> action. >> Only directors on blml mind this, and they cannot explain why that needs > to >> be so, except by saying that if it's better for the player, it must be > illegal. >> Which is a ludicrous reason, of course. >> Herman. >> >> Peter Eidt schreef: >>> In a non-HdW-school world the answer should be: >>> >>> A: ?poc? ? and bid 2H (taking it as Stayman) >>> >>> B: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H >>> >>> C: ?Stayman? ? and bid 2H >>> >>> *von *PO Sundelin >>> >>> Rho opens 1 spade >>> >>> I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) >>> >>> Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and >>> bids >>> 2 clubs after pass by Lho- >>> >>> I alert... and say what? >>> >>> 1. Pass or correct >>> >>> 2. Stayman >>> >>> (As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) >>> >>> In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? >>> >>> Easy? >>> >>> What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? >>> >>> A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. >>> >>> Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. >>> >>> B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten >>> >>> Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman >>> >>> C - I am not sure who has forgotten >>> >>> ??? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 20 09:30:01 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:30:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements In-Reply-To: <53531CEB.9050501@nhcc.net> References: <1397906693.83444.YahooMailNeo@web172905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <000b01cf5bc7$c5748100$505d8300$@t-online.de> <535275B0.3030003@skynet.be> <001a01cf5bd7$ab966450$02c32cf0$@online.no> <002201cf5bda$d2feb620$78fc2260$@t-online.de> <000001cf5beb$c68152c0$5383f840$@online.no> <53531CEB.9050501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001201cf5c6a$60eb35f0$22c1a1d0$@online.no> Steve Willner > > On 2014-04-19 12:23 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > If PO as a result of his partner's alert and explanation becomes aware > > that his own understanding of the partnership agreements was erratic > > he must maintain this (incorrect) understanding. > > For purposes of calls and plays. > > There is a WBFLC interpretation that the player is obliged to give correct > explanations of partnership agreements, no matter how he comes to be aware > of those agreements. [Sven Pran] True, but if I remember correct he is not allowed to vary his own methods from his incorrect understanding to the correct understanding when becoming aware of his mistake is the result of partner's alert and explanation! From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Apr 20 16:00:00 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:00:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] for your amusement Message-ID: <5353D2E0.1080700@aol.com> I recently went by the local bridge club as they were finishing a tournament. There was great confusion and they seemed unable to score the game. (It is in France and it is all done through computers.) What had occurred: There were (originally) 8-1/2 tables (Mitchell) but after the first round (or towards the end of the first round) a pair had to withdraw - one player was ill. The director didn't want to play only 21 bds. (8 table Mitchell with a table skipped after the 4th round) so he recalled that you could have a relay and thus play 24 bds. Unfortunately he didn't seem to know how to do this. He was playing at NS 1 and took the bds. from table 9 (which had been abandoned) to table 8, kept the bds. he had played as a relay set and put no relay set between tables 4 and 5, and did not share bds. with table 8. If you are still with me (in this gothic horror) play proceded and, of course, starting at the middle of the tournament EW pairs started getting bds. they had already played. (Due to the complication of a faulty system this was not at all tables, only a few.) And this happened in the following rounds. This was not always noticed as some EW players played hands for the second time without noticing and no one noticed that an EW pair number appeared twice on the traveller. (It didn't always because many NS pairs entered a incorrect number for EW (as I later discovered). Anyway, this was the situation when I entered the club. In a fit of masochism and lunacy I offered to score the tournament. After all, years ago we scored all tournaments per hand. The computer would not accept any results because all of the EW pair numbers did not correspond with what was in the system in the computer. So I started hand-scoring, only to discover that many of the entered EW pair numbers were obviously incorrect. And there were at least 15 (more actually) 60% scores. (Not 15 bds, 15 bd. sets). And I had to check all bds. to see who had played a bd. twice without noticing. Quiz problem (if anyone is still interested) How long did it take me to score the tournament? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 21 08:15:05 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:15:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <2B3EED76-A236-4FC0-9D6C-D77B9C75674A@wesleyan.edu> Message-ID: <002801cf5d29$0a653180$1f2f9480$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Timothy N. Hill > Sent: Sunday, 20 April 2014 2:26 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Three incidents > > P.S. re the recent thread on written bidding: If you've directed games with > written bidding, how often have you had players claim they wrote an > "inadvertent call"? > [tony] With written bidding you only eliminate the mispulled cards which are stuck together. You get just as many brain snaps (I always say: "not difficult to rule in your case" :). I cannot remember a single case where I have ever had difficulty in denying a L25A inadvertency since John Probst put me right 15 years ago. In that case I myself had forgotten to complete a transfer, and I remarked that most Oz directors seemed to take a very lenient line and allow an inadvertency. My all time favourite law was the old Kaplan L25B which I pretended to make up at the time to much amusement. Very sorry to see that one go. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From thill75 at wesleyan.edu Mon Apr 21 13:37:07 2014 From: thill75 at wesleyan.edu (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:37:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <69D88C42-9C19-4CE9-8714-244BD8F5749D@wesleyan.edu> On 2014 Apr 18, at 22:04, Steve Willner wrote: > ... This one has some actual Laws content. The auction is over with South > to become declarer. East leads face up out of turn. North immediately > puts the dummy down before anyone has drawn attention to the LOOT. > > The mechanical ruling is obvious: L54C says that the lead is accepted, > and L54B1 says the play goes in normal order. The question is whether > North has committed an irregularity. If so, L23 could apply. However, > L41D says nothing about the opening lead being correct, and North argues > he has followed correct procedure. Which Law, if any, has North broken > or not followed? > > "Irregularity ? a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not > limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.? Please disregard my first reply to this portion of Steve?s post, which I obviously misread. I think North?s action is irregular and subject to Law 23. I don?t think the 2007/2008 Laws are as clear as they might be on this point. 54A and 54B offer the lead-accepting options to (presumed) declarer, not to (presumed) dummy. 54C effectively gives dummy a way to usurp declarer?s decision, but I think doing so is irregular. I think whenever a director applies 54C he should consider whether dummy could judge from his own cards that the OLOOT is favorable. A rather circular observation: Calling the director does not forfeit rights (9B1c), so *if* (presumed) dummy had a ?right? to bring 54C into play, then we?d have to add a sixth option to our OLOOT spiels! Tim From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Apr 21 17:22:34 2014 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:22:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BDoubl=5D_Z=F6gern_beim_Spiel?= In-Reply-To: <53551CEF.30506@aol.com> References: <1WbXi5-0DMWMC0@fwd25.t-online.de>, <5353FD52.26743.6ED598@oskar.vondemhagen.uni-hamburg.de>, <003301cf5cba$c987b3e0$5c971ba0$@t-online.de> <53551A0E.28640.4C71260@oskar.vondemhagen.uni-hamburg.de> <53551CEF.30506@aol.com> Message-ID: <535537BA.9000705@aol.com> Am 21.04.2014 15:28, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > I disagree! Wenn ich ?berzeugt bin dass der Mann ohne Grund gez?gert > hat, dann: > > 1. Ich gebe d. Alleinspieler d. Stich oder zumindest 60% > 2. Ich bestrafe d. Spieler der gez?gert hat. > 3. Ich rede ernsthaft mit dem Z?gerer ?ber unethische Spielweise und, > ggf. (unwahrscheinlich normalerweise) behalte ich es mir vor d. Action > der Spieler an d. Verband weiter zu berichten > > Ciao, JE > > Am 21.04.2014 15:15, schrieb Oskar von dem Hagen: >> Ein Schaden entsteht doch nur, wenn der Alleinspieler aufgrund des >> Zuppelns >> seinen Plan ?ndert. Nach 73D tut er das auf eigenes Risiko. Eine >> Scorekorrektur >> scheint mir dieser Regel zu widersprechen. >> >> 73F steht allerdings dazu in Widerspruch, denn dort wird der >> Alleinspieler bei >> "eine[m] falschen R?ckschluss" aufgrund des Tempowechsels gesch?tzt. Ich >> verstehe das (inzwischen) als eine Art Kronzeugenregelung: damit das >> Vergehen >> des linken Gegners angezeigt wird, gibt es eine Belohnung (die >> eigentlich 73D >> widerspricht). >> >> Unten folgt der Artikel aus dem ACBL Bulletin (March 2074 Bridge >> Bulletin >> p.51). >> >> Gru? >> Oskar >> >> "Ruling the Game >> >> Q: At a recent sectional, I declared a spade contract with [spades] Q >> 10 8 7 5 >> 3 in my hand opposite [spades] A J 9 2 in dummy. After I won the >> opening lead >> in my hand, I played the [spade] Q. After hitching, fumbling, >> hesitating and >> not playing in tempo, my left-hand opponent played low. The queen >> lost to the >> singleton king on my right. I called the director before playing to >> the next >> trick. I explained that I would have gone up with the ace if LHO had >> played in >> tempo. Accordingly, I was awarded the trick. LHO appealed to a >> committee who >> reversed the director. The reason: The percentage play was to >> finesse. I played >> at my own risk. In effect, therefore, my LHO was being told that it's >> okay to >> hitch, hesitate and fumble in obvious finesse situations. "If you can >> mislead >> declarer, go for it!" Is this the way the game should be played? >> >> A: Given the facts as stated, I think it is possible that the >> director erred in >> his application of the law and the committee set him correct. Law 73D >> (Communication: Variations in Tempo or Manner) says, "It is >> desirable, though >> not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and >> unvarying manner. >> However, players should be particularly careful when variations may >> work to the >> benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo >> or manner >> in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. >> Inferences from >> such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at >> his own >> risk." What causes me the most discomfort about this case is that >> neither the >> director nor the committee addressed the offender's behavior. If it >> was really >> this blatant, the director should assess a procedural penalty. The >> committee >> could also do so. This penalty reduces the score of the offender without >> increasing or decreasing the score of the non-offending side. The >> basis for >> this action would be Law 90 (Procedural Penalties)." >> >> >> ********** List Info ********** >> Doubl mailing list >> Doubl at imperia.net >> http://ml.imperia.org/mailman/listinfo/doubl >> ******************************** >> > --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 21 23:51:32 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:51:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A737F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: >..... >In a Bridge World editorial Edgar Kaplan observed that it was important >to have a default option for the meaning of your call, rather than being >wholly reliant upon the opponents having a partnership understanding >about the meaning of their previous call in an obscure auction. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : strongly disagree. I want to be allowed e.g. to play SOS redoubles >over penalty doubles and strength-showing (or lead-showing) doubles >over take-out doubles, obscure auction or not. Non-existent Law 94: "When Alain and partner's esoteric convention has created an obscure auction, Alain's opponents must have a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding about whether their double is takeout or penalty." :) :) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140421/66fce556/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 00:39:13 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:39:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Sven Pran earlier post: >>>The correct answer is that PO should do exactly the same as he would have >>>done playing with screens so that he has no knowledge of partner's alert(s) >>>or explanation(s) to opponents. >>>..... Steve Willner: >>For purposes of calls and plays. >> >>There is a WBFLC interpretation that the player is obliged to give correct >>explanations of partnership agreements, no matter how he comes to be aware >>of those agreements. Sven Pran later post: >True, but if I remember correct he is not allowed to vary his own methods >from his incorrect understanding to the correct understanding when becoming >aware of his mistake is the result of partner's alert and explanation! Richard Hills: Yes, Law 75A is applicable to PO's subsequent calls and plays. But Sven's initial "playing with screens" analogy is false. The explanation from PO's partner is partially AI to PO for his "compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings". [WBF LC minutes October 2008] An extreme example of this situation occurred when as dealer I passed with a balanced 6 hcp. What's the problem? The problem was that my partner, Hashmat Ali, correctly alerted my Pass. I then realised that we had abandoned our long- standing Strong Club system to experiment with a HUM Strong Pass system. So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 20F by explaining Hashmat's calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass system, and I also obeyed Law 75A by me bidding in accordance with our once-and-future Strong Club system. We eventually arrived in 3D in a non-fit, -250. The silver lining was that my obedience to Law 20F meant that neither opponent had the AI available to execute a penalty double. :) :) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140421/70f5aa89/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 00:59:10 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:59:10 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A738A0@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL PO Sundelin: >>Rho opens 1 spade >>I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18) >>Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and bids >>2 clubs after pass by Lho- >> >>I alert... and say what? >>1. Pass or correct >>2. Stayman >> >>(As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT) >>In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents? >> >>Easy? >>What about them being entitled to be told our agreements? >> >>A - Partner?s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten. >> Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. >>B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten >> Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman >>C - I am not sure who has forgotten >> ??? Herman De Wael: >I'm glad you're so confident, Peter [Eidt], but could you explain to me >why you do what you do in case C? WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th October 2010, item 8: "The committee agreed that if a player infers from information given that opponents have had a misunderstanding he is entitled to use that inference at his own risk. Opponents are entitled only to correct explanations of opponents' partnership agreements. A player who hears partner give an explanation that does not conform with the partnership understanding is required to offer the correct explanation at the due time stated in Law 20F5(b). However if he is uncertain as to what is the correct partnership understanding he is under no obligation to speak immediately, the matter then being one to refer for resolution to the Director at the end of the play under Law 20F6." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140421/c8bceec3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 02:22:35 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:22:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7391F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 40C, first sentence: "Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy's hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn)." Macquarie Dictionary, two defintions of "but": conjunction 1. on the contrary; yet: they all went, but I didn't. 2. except, rather than, or save: anywhere but here. Richard Hills: It is correct procedure for dummy to spread her cards after a faced opening lead in turn. Because of the Law 40C word "but", it is incorrect procedure (an irregularity / infraction) for dummy to spread her cards after a faced opening lead out of turn. QED UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140422/9365f140/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Apr 22 02:48:26 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:48:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5355BC5A.9050900@nhcc.net> It seems comments have ebbed, but more are still welcome. >> 1. The Green Card On 2014-04-19 3:00 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > SW is South. Afraid so. This was a club game, and EW were beginners. I'd come to play boards, not to fool with rectifications, and anyway freeing West to do something silly gave me a better shot at a score windfall than barring him from the auction. Explaining that last to the Director might have been awkward, though. >> 2. The Relays > SW is south. Good guess, but nope. I haven't played relays for the last three years. Tim had it right; I was the West who asked out of turn. Presumably South could have refused to answer, but we'd want to know the meaning sooner or later, and it saved time to ask while the L25A ruling was being dealt with. Nobody commented on the propriety of the question coming from me rather than partner. The mistaken step response had no influence on the result, and I don't think UI could have been an issue: South had no way to know whether North's mistake was too low or too high. (It was too low, showing four 2-1 points when she had five; 6CS made easily with the extra control.) > West may like to accept change of bid under L25B That would be East, right? We weren't offered that option, presumably because North had not made an actual change of call but only asked whether a change was possible. >> 3. The Quick Dummy Everyone thinks this must be an irregularity, but despite Richard's "creative" effort, I don't yet see any Law that has been violated. (L54A allows but does not require the original declarer to put dummy down. Presumably if he does so, original dummy is not obliged to expose any cards, accounting for the "but see" in L41C.) I was not at the table for this one; it's a case I saw posed elsewhere. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 03:14:39 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:14:39 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7398B@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 40C, first sentence: "Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy's hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn)." Macquarie Dictionary, two definitions of "but": conjunction 1. on the contrary; yet: they all went, but I didn't. 2. except, rather than, or save: anywhere but here. Richard Hills: >>It is correct procedure for dummy to spread her cards after a faced >>opening lead in turn. Because of the Law 40C word "but", it is in- >>correct procedure (an irregularity / infraction) for dummy to spread >>her cards after a faced opening lead out of turn. QED Steve Willner: >..... >3. The Quick Dummy > >Everyone thinks this must be an irregularity, but despite Richard's >"creative" effort, I don't yet see any Law that has been violated. >..... Richard Hills: Yes, "I don't yet see any Law that has been violated" is the heart of the question. Are all actions with bridge consequences permitted unless specifically prohibited by Law? Or..... Are all actions with bridge consequences prohibited unless specifically permitted by Law? In the Introduction, the initial clause of the pen- ultimate paragraph states: "Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong)" but Law 54A does not state: "dummy may spread her cards after a faced opening lead out of turn". UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140422/4ddb4a5a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 03:28:50 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:28:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A739A6@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Are all actions with bridge consequences permitted unless specifically >prohibited by Law? > >Or..... > >Are all actions with bridge consequences prohibited unless specifically >permitted by Law? Law 72A, General Principles, Observance of Laws: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst ++complying with the lawful procedures++ and ethical standards ++set out++ in these laws." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140422/e253cee0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 03:57:41 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:57:41 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A739DB@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des Lois (1748): "La corruption de chaque gouvernement commence presque toujours par celle des principes." [The deterioration of a government begins almost always by the decay of its principles.] Steve Willner, contrarian: >..... >It's not the spreading of cards that's the problem in my view but >rather the quickness with which it was done. But what specifically >was the irregularity? > >A contrary view would say the declaring side is entitled to take best >advantage of the LOOT, so dummy has done nothing at all wrong. Richard Hills, contra-contrarian: My opinion is that the above contrarian view is a decay of the principle of the Laws that declarer decides; dummy is "le mort". Law 42A1(c): "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140422/d84da571/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 22 08:54:48 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:54:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > An extreme example of this situation occurred when as dealer I passed with a > balanced 6 hcp. What?s the problem? The problem was that my partner, Hashmat > Ali, correctly alerted my Pass. I then realised that we had abandoned > our long- > standing Strong Club system to experiment with a HUM Strong Pass system. > So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 20F by explaining Hashmat?s > calls > in accordance with our current Strong Pass system, and I also obeyed Law 75A > by me bidding in accordance with our once-and-future Strong Club system. > We eventually arrived in 3D in a non-fit, -250. The silver lining was > that my > obedience to Law 20F meant that neither opponent had the AI available to > execute a penalty double. J J Exactly, and this is the correct thing to do. However! Suppose the TD arrives at the table and asks you to prove that you are playing the strong pass rather than the strong club. You are claiming misbid, but perhaps the TD will not accept this and wish to rule misinformation. In your opinion, your actions are the worst possible ethics dWS-wise. Do you really want your ethics to depend on which system the TD is going to ascribe to you? What if you honestly have no idea which of the two available convention cards is lying near your opponent? IMO, your actions are correct regardless. You arrive in a ludicrous contract, bacause you don't use the UI available to you, but that contract is not doubled since your opponents have not had the opportunity to discover something they were not entitled to. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 22 13:10:24 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:10:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:54:48 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Richard James HILLS schreef: >> An extreme example of this situation occurred when as dealer I passed >> with a >> balanced 6 hcp. What?s the problem? The problem was that my partner, >> Hashmat >> Ali, correctly alerted my Pass. I then realised that we had abandoned >> our long- >> standing Strong Club system to experiment with a HUM Strong Pass system. >> So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 20F by explaining Hashmat?s >> calls >> in accordance with our current Strong Pass system, and I also obeyed >> Law 75A >> by me bidding in accordance with our once-and-future Strong Club system. >> We eventually arrived in 3D in a non-fit, -250. The silver lining was >> that my >> obedience to Law 20F meant that neither opponent had the AI available to >> execute a penalty double. J J > > Exactly, and this is the correct thing to do. > However! > Suppose the TD arrives at the table and asks you to prove that you are > playing the strong pass rather than the strong club. You are claiming > misbid, but perhaps the TD will not accept this and wish to rule > misinformation. > In your opinion, your actions are the worst possible ethics dWS-wise. Do > you really want your ethics to depend on which system the TD is going to > ascribe to you? What if you honestly have no idea which of the two > available convention cards is lying near your opponent? He can just check, right? (The need to give the opponents the correct explanation takes priority over all of the other laws, which is the only reason he can use UI to give the correct explanation.) > > IMO, your actions are correct regardless. You arrive in a ludicrous > contract, bacause you don't use the UI available to you, but that > contract is not doubled since your opponents have not had the > opportunity to discover something they were not entitled to. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 23 08:46:39 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:46:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:54:48 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> In your opinion, your actions are the worst possible ethics dWS-wise. Do >> you really want your ethics to depend on which system the TD is going to >> ascribe to you? What if you honestly have no idea which of the two >> available convention cards is lying near your opponent? > > He can just check, right? Can he? I'm sure he cannot! This would be UI tho his partner AND extreme UI to himself. > (The need to give the opponents the correct > explanation takes priority over all of the other laws, which is the only > reason he can use UI to give the correct explanation.) > Well, this statement is very fine in itself, but: not only is it not true (nowhere in the laws does it say that), but moreover IMO it is completely the opposite. The obligation not to give UI to partner in fact supersedes the obligation to give correct information to the opponents. Or how else do you interpret L25F2? it is the mistaken belief in this interpretation, by many directors, which causes them to disbelief the DWS. Yet nowhere in the laws is this belief represented, and the only place in the laws where the two are in conflict, the laws select that UI is the grave crime than MI. I really don't understand why people do not recognize that this is the case. read L25F2 again and check for yourself. A player has the opporthunity to correct MI, at the prize of giving UI. The laws ecplicitely say that he should not do this. Giving UI is considered a grave crime than allowing MI to stand. Clear as anything, IMO. Herman. >> >> IMO, your actions are correct regardless. You arrive in a ludicrous >> contract, bacause you don't use the UI available to you, but that >> contract is not doubled since your opponents have not had the >> opportunity to discover something they were not entitled to. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Apr 23 09:31:27 2014 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:31:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> On 23/04/2014 07:46, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, this statement is very fine in itself, but: not only is it not > true (nowhere in the laws does it say that), but moreover IMO it is > completely the opposite. > The obligation not to give UI to partner in fact supersedes the > obligation to give correct information to the opponents. Or how else do > you interpret L25F2? Having read this, I eagerly jumped for my Law Book to try to discover what is the source of the disagreement between Herman and most of the rest of the world, but I can find no Law 25F2 (nor for that matter any Law 73F2). Which law did you really mean Herman? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 23 11:30:30 2014 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:30:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2014 5:31 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > On 23/04/2014 07:46, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Well, this statement is very fine in itself, but: not only is it not > > true (nowhere in the laws does it say that), but moreover IMO it is > > completely the opposite. > > The obligation not to give UI to partner in fact supersedes the > > obligation to give correct information to the opponents. Or how else do > > you interpret L25F2? > Having read this, I eagerly jumped for my Law Book to try to discover > what is the source of the disagreement between Herman and most of the > rest of the world, but I can find no Law 25F2 (nor for that matter any > Law 73F2). Which law did you really mean Herman? > _______________________________________________ [tony] Extraordinary, we now find that some of us are actually using different versions of the Law Book. I know that my own copy was officially promulgated in Australia before they changed L27, so I have to read through about 4 pages of stuck on stuff if I ever need to rule. No wonder I just let everything through. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 23 12:06:34 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:06:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <535790AA.6030204@skynet.be> L20F5 Gordon Rainsford schreef: > > On 23/04/2014 07:46, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Well, this statement is very fine in itself, but: not only is it not >> true (nowhere in the laws does it say that), but moreover IMO it is >> completely the opposite. >> The obligation not to give UI to partner in fact supersedes the >> obligation to give correct information to the opponents. Or how else do >> you interpret L25F2? > Having read this, I eagerly jumped for my Law Book to try to discover > what is the source of the disagreement between Herman and most of the > rest of the world, but I can find no Law 25F2 (nor for that matter any > Law 73F2). Which law did you really mean Herman? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 14:23:02 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:23:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/04/2014 22:46, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2014-04-19 3:00 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > Thanks, Tony. I think we all know the proper "mechanical" ruling in > these cases, but I'm curious what people think of the oddities. > >>> 3. The Quick Dummy >> Lead must be accepted as a card of dummy has been >> exposed, > Yes, that's obvious. > >> but L23 may well apply. This is because dummy >> should not spread his hand before the director has has been >> called (infraction of L54). > Sorry, I don't see that "should not" anywhere in L54. What am I missing? > > No attention has been called to the irregularity, so L9B doesn't apply, > and L9A3 specifically says dummy may not draw attention. > > AG : I think it is worse than this : if there is a LOOT and nobody noticed then dummy *must* spread his hand. Failure to do so would be 'drawing attention' to the irregularity. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 14:25:03 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:25:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E207.9050300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5357B11F.30007@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/04/2014 2:23, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:52:23 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >>>> 3. The Quick Dummy >> On 2014-04-19 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> L23 needs to be considered, or else >>> you are allowing dummy to accept the lead. >> I agree with the principle, but I'm having trouble finding anything that >> allows us to apply it. I'll go a little further: if nobody draws >> attention in a reasonable time, I think dummy is obliged to spread his >> cards. Otherwise dummy is illegally drawing attention in violation of >> L9A3. > I don't think silence counts as drawing attention. In this case, everyone > is sitting there silently. > > Suppose declarer calls for a nonexistent card from dummy. I think dummy's > obligation is to sit there silently. > > > Hmm. Cancel my previous message. The person who sits over the LOOT fails to spread his hand is in fact declarer ! From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 14:33:39 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:33:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A737F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A737F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5357B323.5000507@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/04/2014 23:51, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Richard Hills: > >..... > >In a Bridge World editorial Edgar Kaplan observed that it was important > >to have a default option for the meaning of your call, rather than being > >wholly reliant upon the opponents having a partnership understanding > >about the meaning of their previous call in an obscure auction. > Alain Gottcheiner: > >AG : strongly disagree. I want to be allowed e.g. to play SOS redoubles > >over penalty doubles and strength-showing (or lead-showing) doubles > >over take-out doubles, obscure auction or not. > Non-existent Law 94: > "When Alain and partner's esoteric convention has created an obscure > auction, Alain's opponents must have a pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding about whether their double is takeout or penalty." > Well, the example I had in mind was a double of a Multi 2D opening. I think I'm entitled to know what my opponents double with, and to vary my responses according to it. Things evolve : in 1993, at the highest level, not knowing what your double of a NF competitive bid (eg 1H (1S) 2C ) means was tolerated. It is no more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140423/1e748597/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 23 14:40:30 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:40:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301cf5ef1$36c96010$a45c2030$@online.no> Alain Gottcheiner > > > AG : I think it is worse than this : if there is a LOOT and nobody > noticed then dummy *must* spread his hand. Failure to do so would be > 'drawing attention' to the irregularity. [Sven Pran] Presumed dummy doesn't become dummy until the opening lead has been faced. This implies that in a Law 54 case presumed dummy is not subject to dummy's limitations so long as he does not expose any of his cards (and presumed declarer does not select any of the options offered in Laws 54A, 54B and 54D). From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Apr 23 16:15:08 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:15:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-23 8:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > if there is a LOOT and nobody noticed then dummy *must* spread his hand. > Failure to do so would be 'drawing attention' to the irregularity. I wrote much the same thing earlier in the thread, though I hadn't noticed Alain's point about "drawing attention." L41D seems to apply. The concern I have is not that dummy has faced his cards but that he did so _quickly_, and I can't find anything that prohibits his doing so. (I realize Alain changed his opinion later, but I think he was right the first time as above.) Richard's suggestion of L42A1(c) is the best I've seen so far, but it's a stretch. How is doing what L41D requires come to be participating in the play? But if one is determined to apply L23, I suppose it's the all we have. On 2014-04-23 8:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Presumed dummy doesn't become dummy until the opening lead has been > faced. It has been faced, just not by the correct leader. From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 23 16:38:20 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:38:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-04-23 8:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Presumed dummy doesn't become dummy until the opening lead has been > > faced. > > It has been faced, just not by the correct leader. [Sven Pran] Yes, but until presumed declarer decides that he will not apply Law 54A and let presumed dummy become declarer, presumed dummy should not anticipate or influence this decision in any way, for instance by facing his cards. The very existence of Law 54 tells us that an OLOOT does not have the full effect of an opening lead until presumed declarer has made his choice under this law. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Apr 23 17:12:48 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:12:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-23 10:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > until presumed declarer decides that he will not apply Law 54A and > let presumed dummy become declarer, presumed dummy should not anticipate or > influence this decision in any way, for instance by facing his cards. Everyone believes that, but we are still looking for an actual Law that says so. L42A1(c) is so far the only one that seems even remotely plausible to me. > The very existence of Law 54 tells us that an OLOOT does not have the full > effect of an opening lead until presumed declarer has made his choice under > this law. L54 applies once someone draws attention to the LOOT, but here no one has drawn attention. What do people think is the proper procedure if there's a LOOT and nobody draws attention in a normal period of time? I claim it's correct for dummy to face his cards, and doing otherwise would violate L43A1b. (In real life, someone will always draw attention, but we can discuss the theoretical possibility to see whether it illuminates the case under discussion.) From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 23 19:24:26 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:24:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001101cf5f18$e0c367b0$a24a3710$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-04-23 10:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > until presumed declarer decides that he will not apply Law 54A and let > > presumed dummy become declarer, presumed dummy should not anticipate > > or influence this decision in any way, for instance by facing his cards. > > Everyone believes that, but we are still looking for an actual Law that says so. > L42A1(c) is so far the only one that seems even remotely plausible to me. > > > The very existence of Law 54 tells us that an OLOOT does not have the > > full effect of an opening lead until presumed declarer has made his > > choice under this law. > > L54 applies once someone draws attention to the LOOT, but here no one has > drawn attention. > > What do people think is the proper procedure if there's a LOOT and nobody > draws attention in a normal period of time? I claim it's correct for dummy to > face his cards, and doing otherwise would violate L43A1b. > (In real life, someone will always draw attention, but we can discuss the > theoretical possibility to see whether it illuminates the case under > discussion.) [Sven Pran] I thought it was obvious that while a player is "presumed dummy" waiting to become "dummy" he is not yet subject to dummy's limitations and thus is free to call attention to an OLOOT. If he becomes dummy immediately on an OLOOT then Law 54A is meaningless and cannot apply. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 23 20:38:28 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:38:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:30:30 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Gordon Rainsford >> Sent: Wednesday, 23 April 2014 5:31 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> On 23/04/2014 07:46, Herman De Wael wrote: >> > Well, this statement is very fine in itself, but: not only is it not >> > true (nowhere in the laws does it say that), but moreover IMO it is >> > completely the opposite. >> > The obligation not to give UI to partner in fact supersedes the >> > obligation to give correct information to the opponents. Or how else > do >> > you interpret L25F2? >> Having read this, I eagerly jumped for my Law Book to try to discover >> what is the source of the disagreement between Herman and most of the >> rest of the world, but I can find no Law 25F2 (nor for that matter any >> Law 73F2). Which law did you really mean Herman? >> _______________________________________________ > [tony] Extraordinary, we now find that some of us > are actually using different versions of the Law Book. > I know that my own copy was officially promulgated > in Australia before they changed L27, so I have to > read through about 4 pages of stuck on stuff if > I ever need to rule. No wonder I just let everything > through. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) The exact law, minute really, is "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words 'nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings." So, there is an overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership agreements. Or there isn't, but the minute says there is. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Apr 23 20:45:17 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:45:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <001101cf5f18$e0c367b0$a24a3710$@online.no> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <001101cf5f18$e0c367b0$a24a3710$@online.no> Message-ID: <53580A3D.5090409@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-23 1:24 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I thought it was obvious that while a player is "presumed dummy" waiting to > become "dummy" he is not yet subject to dummy's limitations I think that's right but not obvious. > and thus is free to call attention to an OLOOT. The question is exactly when "presumed dummy" becomes "dummy." I _think_ that is specified by L41C and also in the definition of "Play period," but maybe I'm missing something. Those two references don't require a correct opening lead, only a faced opening lead. > If he becomes dummy immediately on an OLOOT then Law 54A is meaningless and > cannot apply. Look again at L54A. It says "declarer," not "presumed declarer," and "dummy," not "presumed dummy." The implication is that declarer and dummy exist at the point 54A applies, but 54A (if it applies) allows them to switch roles. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Wed Apr 23 23:14:08 2014 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:14:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net><005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E207.9050300@nhcc.net> <5357B11F.30007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Three incidents Le 20/04/2014 2:23, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:52:23 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >>>> 3. The Quick Dummy >> On 2014-04-19 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> L23 needs to be considered, or else >>> you are allowing dummy to accept the lead. >> I agree with the principle, but I'm having trouble finding anything that >> allows us to apply it. I'll go a little further: if nobody draws >> attention in a reasonable time, I think dummy is obliged to spread his >> cards. Otherwise dummy is illegally drawing attention in violation of >> L9A3. > I don't think silence counts as drawing attention. In this case, everyone > is sitting there silently. > > Suppose declarer calls for a nonexistent card from dummy. I think dummy's > obligation is to sit there silently. > Hmm. Cancel my previous message. The person who sits over the LOOT fails to spread his hand is in fact declarer ! ..................... A real life story from a congress for the funny file. S W N E P P P 2D Multi P 2H P 2NT P 3D X XX All Pass 2D, 2H and 3D were all correctly alerted. EW Vul 974 10 AK1062 Q632 863 AKQ J7532 A94 J83 Q97 98 KJ74 J1052 KQ86 54 A105 East is Declarer in 3DXX East faces the SA as the "opening lead", South puts her hand down as the dummy. East cashes the SAKQ and HA before West says, "Something's not right here." Jan _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 23 23:22:00 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:22:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <53580A3D.5090409@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <001101cf5f18$e0c367b0$a24a3710$@online.no> <53580A3D.5090409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001301cf5f3a$10d6acc0$32840640$@online.no> Steve Willner > On 2014-04-23 1:24 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I thought it was obvious that while a player is "presumed dummy" > > waiting to become "dummy" he is not yet subject to dummy's limitations > > I think that's right but not obvious. > > > and thus is free to call attention to an OLOOT. > > The question is exactly when "presumed dummy" becomes "dummy." I _think_ > that is specified by L41C and also in the definition of "Play period," but maybe > I'm missing something. Those two references don't require a correct opening > lead, only a faced opening lead. [Sven Pran] The implication of this is that a faced opening lead before the auction ends by a player who is about to become defender has the same effect. The laws make sense only if Law 41C is understood as referring to faced _legal_ opening lead. > > If he becomes dummy immediately on an OLOOT then Law 54A is > > meaningless and cannot apply. > > Look again at L54A. It says "declarer," not "presumed declarer," and > "dummy," not "presumed dummy." The implication is that declarer and > dummy exist at the point 54A applies, but 54A (if it applies) allows them to > switch roles. [Sven Pran] It appears to me that the laws are not completely consistent in the use of the term "presumed" From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 01:03:50 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:03:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7613A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard Hills: ..... In a Bridge World editorial Edgar Kaplan observed that it was important to have a default option for the meaning of your call, rather than being wholly reliant upon the opponents having a partnership understanding about the meaning of their previous call in an obscure auction. Alain Gottcheiner: AG : strongly disagree. I want to be allowed e.g. to play SOS redoubles over penalty doubles and strength-showing (or lead-showing) doubles over take-out doubles, obscure auction or not. Non-existent Law 94: "When Alain and partner's esoteric convention has created an obscure auction, Alain's opponents must have a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding about whether their double is takeout or penalty." Alain Gottcheiner Well, the example I had in mind was a double of a Multi 2D opening. I think I'm entitled to know what my opponents double with, and to vary my responses according to it. ..... Richard Hills: Another Bridge World example of a problem with varying responses: "We play ultra-modern hyper-aggressive pre-empts." "Okay, we will vary our defence to your pre-empts from a takeout double to a penalty double." "Okay, since you play penalty doubles we will now play classical conservative pre-empts." "Okay, we will vary our defence to your pre-empts from a penalty double to a takeout double." "Okay, since you play takeout doubles we will now play ultra- modern hyper-aggressive pre-empts." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. :) :) UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140423/cb980922/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 04:04:52 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 02:04:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A762EE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6: "The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at each year's meetings. The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and until it changed them." Alain Gottcheiner: >>if there is a LOOT and nobody noticed then dummy *must* spread his >>hand. Failure to do so would be 'drawing attention' to the irregularity. Steve Willner: >I wrote much the same thing earlier in the thread, though I hadn't >noticed Alain's point about "drawing attention." Richard Hills: In my opinion, dummy intentionally spreading her hand after a OLOOT is not only an irregularity, but also an infraction of Law 72B1. Likewise, intentionally lying to the opponents about one's methods is not only a Law 20F1 infraction, but also a Law 72B1 infraction. The WBF LC has ruled that truthfulness under Law 20F1 over-rides the strictures of Law 20F5. No doubt the 2015 Lawbook will state that dummy *must not* create a new irregularity in order to avoid a Law 9 "drawing attention" to LHO's opening-lead-out-of-turn previous irregularity. Steve Willner >L41D seems to apply. Richard Hills: I agree with Sven that Law 41D's application is restricted to after an opening-lead-*in*-turn (as otherwise Law 54 would be meaningless). No doubt the 2015 Lawbook will specify that dummy has non-existent rights after an OLOOT unless and until declarer decides to transmogrify into dummy. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 8: "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140424/9f391754/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 24 06:41:54 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 06:41:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <53589612.4090700@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > The exact law, minute really, is > > "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that > partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words 'nor may he indicate > in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer > to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to > respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the > partnership understandings." > What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain "correctly". OK. What it does not say is that it wrong to explain "consistently". Yes, there is a requirement to complain "correctly". So if a player fails to do that, he shall be subject to the MI laws. But THAT'S ALL. There is no law that says that if you explain "consistently", you have failed to give UI, and we shall apply the UI laws to an non-existent piece of UI. I repeat, while the dWS may not be acceptable, according to your views, there is no law or regulation which makes it wronger that the application of MI laws. All the above minute does is render the giving of UI by non-dWS proponents "acceptable". So you won't be excluded from the bridge world for 10 years for giving intentional UI. What it does not do is change that UI into AI. Nor does it turn the non-entitled information that dWS'ers refuse to give to their opponents (that they are having a misunderstanding) into entitled information. Nothing like that is in the minute, and I don't regard the minute as "in any manner" obliging me to change my habits. And that does not mean I am stubborn (although I am) but just that the WBFLC have not done what you seem to believe they have done. Sorry! > So, there is an overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to > enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership > agreements. > Indeed, that reguirement exists. But the minute does not make it "overriding". Nor does it change the penalty for failing to act as required. > Or there isn't, but the minute says there is. > No it doesn't. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 07:30:08 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 05:30:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76375@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Herman De Wael, February 2008: >>>..... >>>when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does >>>not make sense. David Burn, February 2008 >>[Lewis Carroll] >> >>?Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice ? >>What I tell you three times is true.? >> >>What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be tolerated in Herman?s >>case. After all, he has been arguing a minority position at long odds, and >>the fact that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a tribute to >>[a] his sincerity; >>[b] his integrity and >>[c] his grasp through thick and thin of the difficulties involved. >> >>I don?t deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new >>code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). I think >>that Herman has been unresponsive to the arguments advanced, especially >>by those in positions of authority, to resolve the problem (which is to say >>that I can well understand why Grattan Endicott and Ton Kooijman are a >>bit fed up with him). I think, as I have said many times, that he is wrong >>to rely on the ?principle? that creation of UI is more to be avoided than >>creation of MI; and that he is wrong to say that the Laws are somehow >>?hierarchically? based on that principle. >> >>But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually >>makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a >>great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first place. >>..... Great service to the game by Herman, WBF LC minute October 2008: ?There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words ?nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings.? Herman De Wael: >What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain >?correctly?. OK. Richard Hills: No, un-OK. Herman?s weak attempted paraphrase of ?not contrary? ain?t synonymous with the strong command ?overriding requirement?. Herman De Wael: >What it does not say is that it wrong to explain ?consistently?. >Yes, there is a requirement to complain ?correctly?. So if a player >fails to do that, he shall be subject to the MI laws. But THAT?S ALL. Richard Hills: ?That?s All Folks?? Not so. Unintentionally infracting the MI Laws is merely an infraction of Law 20 / Law 40 / Law 75. But intentionally infracting the MI Laws is additionally an infraction of the ?must not? Law 72B1. There is no law that says that if you explain ?consistently?, you have failed to give UI, and we shall apply the UI laws to an non-existent piece of UI. >I repeat, while the dWS may not be acceptable, according to your >views, there is no law or regulation which makes it wronger >..... Richard Hills: No, the De Wael school is blatantly wronger. What part of ?There is ++no infraction++ when a correct explanation discloses that partner?s prior explanation was mistaken.? does Herman fail to understand? In times past Herman has very frequently admitted that his DWs approach ++does++ very intentionally infract the MI Laws and Law 72B1. Of course, before October 2008, the Lawbook was paradoxically self- contradictory on this issue, so way back then Herman could argue with some legitimacy that both approaches were infractions. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140424/18567dab/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 24 08:55:25 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 02:55:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53589612.4090700@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> <53589612.4090700@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:41:54 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> The exact law, minute really, is >> >> "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that >> partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words 'nor may he >> indicate >> in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not >> refer >> to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to >> respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the >> partnership understandings." >> > > What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain > "correctly". OK. > What it does not say is that it wrong to explain "consistently". I don't know what you mean by "consistently". (And hence cannot follow the rest of what you said.) > Yes, there is a requirement to complain "correctly". So if a player > fails to do that, he shall be subject to the MI laws. But THAT'S ALL. > There is no law that says that if you explain "consistently", you have > failed to give UI, and we shall apply the UI laws to an non-existent > piece of UI. > > I repeat, while the dWS may not be acceptable, according to your views, > there is no law or regulation which makes it wronger that the > application of MI laws. > > All the above minute does is render the giving of UI by non-dWS > proponents "acceptable". So you won't be excluded from the bridge world > for 10 years for giving intentional UI. What it does not do is change > that UI into AI. Nor does it turn the non-entitled information that > dWS'ers refuse to give to their opponents (that they are having a > misunderstanding) into entitled information. > > Nothing like that is in the minute, and I don't regard the minute as "in > any manner" obliging me to change my habits. > > And that does not mean I am stubborn (although I am) but just that the > WBFLC have not done what you seem to believe they have done. > Sorry! > >> So, there is an overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to >> enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership >> agreements. >> > > Indeed, that reguirement exists. But the minute does not make it > "overriding". It uses the word overriding to describe L20F. I take that to mean overriding. Richard gives one example. He uses UI to give correct explanations of his partner's bids, thereby avoiding a double of his final contract (which was down 5). Nor does it change the penalty for failing to act as > required. > >> Or there isn't, but the minute says there is. >> > > No it doesn't. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 24 09:02:43 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:02:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76375@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76375@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5358B713.9080807@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > Great service to the game by Herman, WBF LC minute October 2008: > ?There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner?s > prior explanation was mistaken. The words ?nor may he indicate in any > manner that a mistake has been made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to > compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to > respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the > partnership understandings.? > Herman De Wael: >>What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain >>?correctly?. OK. > Richard Hills: > No, un-OK. Herman?s weak attempted paraphrase of ?not contrary? > ain?t synonymous with the strong command ?overriding requirement?. Well, if they intended to say "overriding resuirement" why did they write "not contrary"? > Herman De Wael: >>What it does not say is that it wrong to explain ?consistently?. >>Yes, there is a requirement to complain ?correctly?. So if a player >>fails to do that, he shall be subject to the MI laws. But THAT?S ALL. > Richard Hills: > ?That?s All Folks?? Not so. > /Unintentionally/ infracting the MI Laws is merely an infraction of Law > 20 / Law 40 / Law 75. > But /intentionally/ infracting the MI Laws is additionally an infraction > of the ?must not? Law 72B1. > There is no law that says that if you explain ?consistently?, you have > failed to give UI, and we shall apply the UI laws to an non-existent > piece of UI. >>I repeat, while the dWS may not be acceptable, according to your >>views, there is no law or regulation which makes it wronger >>..... > Richard Hills: > No, the De Wael school is blatantly wronger. What part of > ?There is ++no infraction++ when a correct explanation discloses > that partner?s prior explanation was mistaken.? > does Herman fail to understand? In times past Herman has very > frequently admitted that his DWs approach ++does++ very > intentionally infract the MI Laws and Law 72B1. Of course, > before October 2008, the Lawbook was paradoxically self- > contradictory on this issue, so way back then Herman could argue > with some legitimacy that both approaches were infractions. What part of "not contrary" does Richard fail to understand? Anyway. Regardless of previous pronouncements by the WBF LC about this issue, I continue to maintain that the game fo bridge will be more consistent and correct if the principles of dWS be adopted. I am very much concerned about the difference in treatment between a pair whose opponents ask a question and a pair who don't receive such a question. If the MS have their way, the first pair will be subject to UI issues and their opponents will have information (that they are not entitled to) that will enable them to double a ludicrous contract. The second pair will not suffer that same fate. Ergo, the first opponents (those that ask a question) have an advantage over those that don't ask a second question). Do we really want every pair to ask a question at every turn of the auction? After all, they might stumble on a piece of information they are not entitled to. Do we really want to give an advantage to a beginner who asks what a reply means, over an experienced player who knows what the normal answers are supposed to mean? This is not how I want bridge to be. Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 24 09:05:29 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:05:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> <53589612.4090700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5358B7B9.5050406@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:41:54 -0400, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick schreef: >>> >>> The exact law, minute really, is >>> >>> "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that >>> partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words 'nor may he >>> indicate >>> in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not >>> refer >>> to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to >>> respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the >>> partnership understandings." >>> >> >> What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain >> "correctly". OK. >> What it does not say is that it wrong to explain "consistently". > > I don't know what you mean by "consistently". (And hence cannot follow the > rest of what you said.) > It is the explanation of partner's call, consistent with what he just explained to be the meaning of your own call. If he has misexplained your call, the consistent explanation is equally mistaken, but it does conform to what partner is likely to have intended (and to what he actually holds). This is opposed to the "correct" explanation (which I put in brackets because nobody at the table can be certain of what the correct systemic meaning of the call is going to be, since that will only be decided by the Director after examining all the evidence). Clear? Herman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 09:22:56 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:22:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Matilda and Herman versus Richard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76451@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Richard ("Explaining agreements" thread): >>..... >>An extreme example of this situation occurred when as dealer I passed >>with a balanced 6 hcp. What's the problem? The problem was that my >>partner, Hashmat Ali, correctly alerted my Pass. I then realised that we >>had abandoned our long-standing Strong Club system to experiment with >>a HUM Strong Pass system. So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law >>20F by explaining Hashmat's calls in accordance with our current Strong >>Pass system, and I also obeyed Law 75A by me bidding in accordance >>with our once-and-future Strong Club system. >> >>We eventually arrived in 3D in a non-fit, -250. The silver lining was that >>my obedience to Law 20F meant that neither opponent had the AI >>available to execute a penalty double. :) :) Herman ("Explaining agreements" thread): >Exactly, and this is the correct thing to do. > >However! > >Suppose the TD arrives at the table and asks you to prove that you are >playing the strong pass rather than the strong club. You are claiming >misbid, but perhaps the TD will not accept this and wish to rule >misinformation. > >In [my] opinion, your actions are the worst possible ethics dWS-wise. Do >you really want your ethics to depend on which system the TD is going to >ascribe to you? Richard: Tell a lie because the Director will not believe the truth? No, no and no! My ethics depend upon me trying to tell the truth to the best of my ability, ++not++ upon what an incompetent American Director will eventually guess is the truth after she seeks advice from an American lawyer (instead of her seeking Law 85 evidence). By the way, a very funny panel show (broadcast in Britain and Australia) is "Would I Lie To You?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Would_I_Lie_to_You%3F_(TV_series) Herman De Wael: >What if you honestly have no idea which of the two available >convention cards is lying near your opponent? Richard Hills: I may forget our partnership's entire system, but I do not forget to previously complete two identical System Cards. :) :) Hilaire Belloc, Cautionary Tales (1907), Matilda [beginning and end of this cautionary poem]: Matilda told such Dreadful Lies, It made one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes; Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth, Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth, Attempted to Believe Matilda: The effort very nearly killed her, ..... That Night a Fire did break out- You should have heard Matilda Shout! You should have heard her Scream and Bawl, And throw the window up and call To People passing in the Street- (The rapidly increasing Heat Encouraging her to obtain Their confidence)-but all in vain! For every time She shouted "Fire!" They only answered "Little Liar!" And therefore when her Aunt returned, Matilda, and the House, were Burned. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140424/d7ec2ca7/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 24 10:05:39 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:05:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5358B7B9.5050406@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> <53589612.4090700@skynet.be> <5358B7B9.5050406@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 03:05:29 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick schreef: >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:41:54 -0400, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick schreef: >>>> >>>> The exact law, minute really, is >>>> >>>> "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that >>>> partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words 'nor may he >>>> indicate >>>> in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not >>>> refer >>>> to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to >>>> respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the >>>> partnership understandings." >>>> >>> >>> What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain >>> "correctly". OK. >>> What it does not say is that it wrong to explain "consistently". >> >> I don't know what you mean by "consistently". (And hence cannot follow >> the >> rest of what you said.) >> > > It is the explanation of partner's call, consistent with what he just > explained to be the meaning of your own call. If he has misexplained > your call, the consistent explanation is equally mistaken, but it does > conform to what partner is likely to have intended (and to what he > actually holds). > > This is opposed to the "correct" explanation (which I put in brackets > because nobody at the table can be certain of what the correct systemic > meaning of the call is going to be, since that will only be decided by > the Director after examining all the evidence). > > Clear? Yep. Of course, we can't disallow consistent explanations -- when partner gives the correct explanation of your bid, it is both consistent and correct to give a correct explanation of his bid. However, the minute seems clear to me -- when partner gives an incorrect explanation of your bid, then you are supposed to give the correct explanation of his bid, not the consistent explanation. That's off-topic, right? I think we were discussing the use of UI to give the correct and consistent explanation. I would feel comfortable ruling against any player who has read and understood and remembered the Shanghai minute and yet done the opposite. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Apr 24 11:25:39 2014 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:25:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A762EE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A762EE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <61DAB733F9AA49E2B7922B8553C65EDF@G3> [WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6] The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at each year?s meetings. The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and until it changed them.? [Nige1] BLML and other laws discussion groups would be a force for good, if rule-makers read them and contributed to them, as they did in the past. I fondly remember a time when any suggestion for "improvement" in the laws was immediately condemned as bull shit by a WBFLC member. [WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 8] ?The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ?extraneous? and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play.? [Nige2] IMO its ridiculous that 1998 minutes are of current relevance. Every 10 years or so, before a new edition of TFLB, it would help players and directors, if a WBFLC member were delegated the unenviable chore of trawling though each previous minute, deciphering its meaning, extracting its substance, and incorporating it, in place, in TFLB. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 24 13:13:28 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:13:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Matilda and Herman versus Richard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76451@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76451@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <5358F1D8.4050006@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL >> >>However! >> >>Suppose the TD arrives at the table and asks you to prove that you are >>playing the strong pass rather than the strong club. You are claiming >>misbid, but perhaps the TD will not accept this and wish to rule >>misinformation. >> >>In [my] opinion, your actions are the worst possible ethics dWS-wise. Do >>you really want your ethics to depend on which system the TD is going to >>ascribe to you? > Richard: > Tell a lie because the Director will not believe the truth? > No, no and no! No, that is not what I meant. What I meant is that Peter was OK with giving the consistent answer when the player believed his partner had given the correct information. But will the Director believe you when you say you are certain? Not Necessarily! I do not advocate lying, but even when you are telling the truth, there is no reason why the director should believe you. Which basically means that you're always screwed. > My ethics depend upon me trying to tell the truth to the best of my ability, > ++not++ upon what an incompetent American Director will eventually > guess is the truth after she seeks advice from an American lawyer (instead > of her seeking Law 85 evidence). Your ethics depend upon it, but others' ethics? As director, you do not want to have to rely on players' ethics. You should be able to treat honest and dishonest people the same way. And that can only be done in one of two ways: - accept that players are allowed to provide the consistent explanation, or - rule against them whenever they do. It's not a good thing to rule in their favour when they say that they were certain, because they cannot prove that they were, and you cannot prove that they weren't. And I haven't even begun to ask how the ruling should go! Herman. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 24 13:14:39 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:14:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A73876@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53561238.3060504@skynet.be> <535761CF.1070701@skynet.be> <53576C4F.4010203@btinternet.com> <001501cf5ed6$abb0b290$031217b0$@optusnet.com.au> <53589612.4090700@skynet.be> <5358B7B9.5050406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5358F21F.2080806@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > I would feel comfortable ruling against any player who has read and > understood and remembered the Shanghai minute and yet done the opposite. > And how are you going to determine whether a player has read that minute or not? > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 24 13:25:11 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:25:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <61DAB733F9AA49E2B7922B8553C65EDF@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A762EE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <61DAB733F9AA49E2B7922B8553C65EDF@G3> Message-ID: <00bd01cf5faf$db2c41e0$9184c5a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> [Nige1] BLML and other laws discussion groups would be a force for good, if rule-makers read them and contributed to them, as they did in the past. I fondly remember a time when any suggestion for "improvement" in the laws was immediately condemned as bull shit by a WBFLC member. [Nige2] I am not so sure that your memory is adequate ton Nigel IMO its ridiculous that 1998 minutes are of current relevance. Every 10 years or so, before a new edition of TFLB, it would help players and directors, if a WBFLC member were delegated the unenviable chore of trawling though each previous minute, deciphering its meaning, extracting its substance, and incorporating it, in place, in TFLB. 'ridiculous' is not what I would say; furthermore no member of the wbflc has expressed his opinion that all those minutes have current relevance. But your suggestion to express their value for 2014 is worth looking at. Don't ask us to give instant commentary on what is going on in blml. We do once in a while, and did in the renewed discussion on explanation of calls. But then HdW once again wants to demonstrate his brilliancy. ton From lskelso at ihug.com.au Thu Apr 24 14:20:46 2014 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:20:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <61DAB733F9AA49E2B7922B8553C65EDF@G3> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A762EE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <61DAB733F9AA49E2B7922B8553C65EDF@G3> Message-ID: <5359019E.5010804@ihug.com.au> Just because members of the WBFLC rarely participate actively in the discussions, doesn't mean that we aren't keeping a watching brief. There are 5 members of the committee who are still (lurking) subscribers - some less reticent than others. Laurie On 24/04/2014 7:25 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > BLML and other laws discussion groups would be a force for good, if > rule-makers read them and contributed to them, as they did in the past. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu Apr 24 21:21:40 2014 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:21:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A762EE@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL><61DAB733F9AA49E2B7922B8553C65EDF@G3> <5359019E.5010804@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Laurie Kelso To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Just because members of the WBFLC rarely participate actively in the discussions, doesn't mean that we aren't keeping a watching brief. There are 5 members of the committee who are still (lurking) subscribers - some less reticent than others. Laurie On 24/04/2014 7:25 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > BLML and other laws discussion groups would be a force for good, if > rule-makers read them and contributed to them, as they did in the past. It is seriously time for someone with some "authority" to become active on blml. I've lurked for 12 years and I despair at what it has become. The posts that are incorrect under the Laws need to be branded as incorrect so inexperienced directors don't take them as Gospel. Jan _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 14:05:08 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:05:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <535A4F74.7000205@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/04/2014 16:15, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2014-04-23 8:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> if there is a LOOT and nobody noticed then dummy *must* spread his hand. >> Failure to do so would be 'drawing attention' to the irregularity. > I wrote much the same thing earlier in the thread, though I hadn't > noticed Alain's point about "drawing attention." L41D seems to apply. > The concern I have is not that dummy has faced his cards but that he did > so _quickly_, and I can't find anything that prohibits his doing so. (I > realize Alain changed his opinion later, but I think he was right the > first time as above.) > AG : let's read the definitions section and give due attention to the temporality of the facts. A player becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. But dummy is declarer's partner So, in the case of a LOOT, the player left of the lead still is declarer.. If declarer's cards are faced (by reflex or by accepting the LOOT according to the rules), then he becomes dummy. Whence the player who may not react is the one sitting on the right of the LOOT, the official dummy. And the player to the left, who is declarer, may table his cards, tacitly accepting the LOOT, without having (nor being allowed) to refer to partner. So, definitely, dummy hasn't faced his cards. Declarer has faced his cards and become dummy at this moment. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 14:09:16 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:09:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When it helps opponents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7613A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7613A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <535A506C.1000509@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/04/2014 1:03, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : Richard Hills: Another Bridge World example of a problem with varying responses: "We play ultra-modern hyper-aggressive pre-empts." "Okay, we will vary our defence to your pre-empts from a takeout double to a penalty double." "Okay, since you play penalty doubles we will now play classical conservative pre-empts." "Okay, we will vary our defence to your pre-empts from a penalty double to a takeout double." "Okay, since you play takeout doubles we will now play ultra- modern hyper-aggressive pre-empts." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. J J AG : notice that in this case it has been decided that the preemptors would have to decide once and for ever what they're playing, and opponents can devise their defenses according to this. So, no problem anymore (and the right solution IMO) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140425/66661d8e/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 14:12:57 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:12:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76375@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A76375@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <535A5149.6050908@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/04/2014 7:30, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : > UNOFFICIAL > Herman De Wael, February 2008: > >>>..... > >>>when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does > >>>not make sense. > David Burn, February 2008 > >>[Lewis Carroll] > >> > >>"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice -- > >>What I tell you three times is true." > >> > >>What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be tolerated in Herman's > >>case. After all, he has been arguing a minority position at long > odds, and > >>the fact that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a > tribute to > >>[a] his sincerity; > >>[b] his integrity and > >>[c] his grasp through thick and thin of the difficulties involved. > >> > >>I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new > >>code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). I think > >>that Herman has been unresponsive to the arguments advanced, especially > >>by those in positions of authority, to resolve the problem (which is > to say > >>that I can well understand why Grattan Endicott and Ton Kooijman are a > >>bit fed up with him). I think, as I have said many times, that he is > wrong > >>to rely on the "principle" that creation of UI is more to be avoided than > >>creation of MI; and that he is wrong to say that the Laws are somehow > >>"hierarchically" based on that principle. > >> > >>But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually > >>makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a > >>great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first > place. > >>..... > Great service to the game by Herman, WBF LC minute October 2008: > "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that > partner's > prior explanation was mistaken. Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly unplayable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the illogical explanation. Whence I'm among those who don't like this ruling and call for a change, not for the same reasons than Herman ; just to "save the deal" as often as possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140425/76124ca6/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Fri Apr 25 17:18:57 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:18:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> On 4/23/2014 11:12 AM, Steve Willner wrote: >L54 applies once someone draws attention to the LOOT, but here no one has drawn attention. > >What do people think is the proper procedure if there's a LOOT and nobody draws attention in a normal period of >time? I claim it's correct for dummy to face his cards, and doing otherwise would violate L43A1b. (In real life, >someone will always draw attention, but we can discuss the theoretical possibility to see whether it illuminates the >case under discussion.) Shouldn't that be just the opposite? If the OLOOT weren't OOT, dummy would be declarer and play fourth to the trick. Which means he'd be sitting there waiting for his partner to put down his dummy. It is spreading the hand that would be fourth to play to the trick that would call attention to the lead being OOT. Personally, however, I support the interpretation that when the OL is OOT, there is no dummy until declarer exercises his option to determine which hand gets spread, and until he does that anyone at the table may draw attention to the irregularity. -- Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 26 04:32:07 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:32:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:18:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On 4/23/2014 11:12 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > > >L54 applies once someone draws attention to the LOOT, but here no one > has drawn attention. > > > >What do people think is the proper procedure if there's a LOOT and > nobody draws attention in a normal period of >time? I claim it's correct > for dummy to face his cards, and doing otherwise would violate L43A1b. > (In real life, >someone will always draw attention, but we can discuss > the theoretical possibility to see whether it illuminates the >case > under discussion.) > > Shouldn't that be just the opposite? If the OLOOT weren't OOT, dummy > would be declarer and play fourth to the trick. Which means he'd be > sitting there waiting for his partner to put down his dummy. It is > spreading the hand that would be fourth to play to the trick that would > call attention to the lead being OOT. > > Personally, however, I support the interpretation that when the OL is > OOT, there is no dummy until declarer exercises his option to determine > which hand gets spread, and until he does that anyone at the table may > draw attention to the irregularity. It certainly seems to me that the player (dummy, presumed dummy, whatever) should be able to draw attention to the irregularity, in order to prevent partner from putting down his hand as dummy. On the other hand, this creates problems. The player (dummy, presumed dummy, whatever) will draw attention to the irregularity EXCEPT when it looks right to accept the lead. And then the declarer (or presumed declaler or whatever) can use this information to decide whether or not to accept the lead. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 00:10:55 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 22:10:55 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B26A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jan Peach: >It is seriously time for someone with some "authority" to become active >on blml. Richard Hills: In my opinion Jan herself is such an authority. In a recent discussion of dealer perpetrating two consecutive passes, a large number of expert blmlers (myself included) tied ourselves up in knots. But Jan cut the Gordian knot by reading the actual words of the relevant Laws. Jan Peach: >I've lurked for 12 years and I despair at what it has become. The posts >that are incorrect under the Laws need to be branded as incorrect so >inexperienced directors don't take them as Gospel. Richard Hills: The key issue on this thread is the question, "Is anything not specifically prohibited permitted?" with the application "Since it is not mentioned in the Lawbook, is dummy entitled to spread her hand after an opening lead out of turn?" However, Steve Willner was shown to be preaching a false Gospel when a relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute was unearthed. (But I agree with Nigel Guthrie that WBF LC minutes of enduring value should be incorporated into the 2015 Lawbook.) Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): On Omega, the law is supreme. Hidden and revealed, sacred and profane, the law governs the actions of all citizens, from the lowest of the low to the highest of the high. Without the law, there could be no privileges for those who made the law; therefore the law was absolutely necessary. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140427/68821c25/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 28 02:18:58 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:18:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B26A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B26A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:10:55 -0400, Richard James HILLS wrote: >> UNOFFICIAL >Jan Peach: > >> It is seriously time for someone with some ?authority? to become active >> on blml. >Richard Hills: >In my opinion Jan herself is such an authority. In a recent discussion of > dealer perpetrating two consecutive passes, a large number of expert > blmlers (myself included) tied ourselves up in knots. But Jan cut the > Gordian knot by reading the actual words of the relevant Laws. >Jan Peach: > >> I?ve lurked for 12 years and I despair at what it has become. The posts >> that are incorrect under the Laws need to be branded as incorrect so >> inexperienced directors don?t take them as Gospel. >Richard Hills: >The key issue on this thread is the question, ?Is anything not > specifically > prohibited permitted?? with the application ?Since it is not mentioned in > the Lawbook, is dummy entitled to spread her hand after an opening > lead out of turn?? >However, Steve Willner was shown to be preaching a false Gospel > when a relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute was unearthed. And if you think Steve is preaching a false Gospel, you might be thinking of us as trying to find the true Gospel? Less religiously, the minute (which you snipped) is "the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ?extraneous? and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play.? The laws can't be that anything not specified in the laws in an *infraction*. That would include drinking coffee, sorting your hand, picking a card off of the floor, etc. It merely says unspecified actions are *extraneous* and becomes an infraction if it is used in auction or play. Which is actually pretty good -- you can put down the dummy with hearts on the right, but not if that somehow signals your partner something. Ironically, that would not seem to apply to the present situation. It would make putting down the dummy as dummy, following an OLOOT, merely extraneous information. Since declarer never uses this information during the play, it does not become an infraction via this minute. >> > (But I agree with Nigel Guthrie that WBF LC minutes of enduring value > should be incorporated into the 2015 Lawbook.) >Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilization (1960): >On Omega, the law is supreme. Hidden and revealed, sacred and > profane, the law governs the actions of all citizens, from the lowest of > the low to the highest of the high. Without the law, there could be no > privileges for those who made the law; therefore the law was absolutely > necessary. > UNOFFICIAL > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ExperiencesofWestAfrica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/e3adf113/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 28 02:28:07 2014 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:28:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI? AI? Message-ID: LHO makes an opening lead out of turn. If you want to accept the lead, you can hope your partner doesn't notice and puts down his hand as dummy. If you don't want partner to do this, you point out the irregularity. The problem is, there is now a subtle inference available to your partner. If you say something, you probably don't want the lead accepted; if you don't say anthing, you probably do want the lead accepted. And this information is available to the opponents, should you become declarer. Is it UI to them? Analogous situations seem to be too common. I had this auction once: 1H P 4H 5S 5H ? I now want to make a penalty double. I don't want my partner pulling the double, which suggests first calling the director and then choosing to accep the insufficient bid. But, in the actual play, a very clever play was available to declarer if she knew I was making a penalty double. If my calling the director is AI to declarer, perhaps it is best if I don't call the director. Declarer leads from the wrong hand. I decide either to accept or not accept the lead. Is this AI to declarer? Is it UI to partner? I am guessing there is no good solution to any of this, I merely note the problem. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 03:20:12 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:20:12 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL David Burn: >>..... >>But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually >>makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a >>great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first place. >>..... Great service to the game by Herman, WBF LC minute October 2008: "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner's prior explanation was mistaken." Alain Gottcheiner: >Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly un- >playable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the illogical >explanation. Richard Hills: Not utterly unplayable; rather a simple requirement of Law 75A: "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four- card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." Alain Gottcheiner: >Whence I'm among those who don't like this ruling and call for a >change, not for the same reasons than Herman ; just to "save the >deal" as often as possible. Richard Hills: In January I forget to correctly count pard's Blackwood response, bid 7H, but alas the ace of trumps was offside. The deal was not "saved" for my side. Thus if my pard or myself forgets our system, why on earth should we be entitled to lie to "save" / steal the deal from our opponents? World Wide Words http://www.worldwidewords.org British newspapers this past week have featured references to peak beard. They were prompted by a study in the Royal Society's journal Biology Letters by researchers based at the Evolution and Ecology Research Centre of the University of New South Wales, Australia. They conclude that so many men now sport beards that their attractiveness is falling. The study showed that the more bearded men a person saw in succession, the more striking a clean-shaven face became. They noted that this occurs in several animal species and is known as negative frequency-dependent sexual selection. The term peak beard seems to have been coined by the leader of the study, Professor Rob Brooks of UNSW. He took it from peak coal, peak oil and similar expressions denoting the point at which the production of something reaches its maximum level and then declines. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/d2b258a5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 04:42:43 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 02:42:43 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B5B4@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL WBF LC minute October 2008: "There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner's prior explanation was mistaken. The words 'nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made' (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings." Herman De Wael: >>>What this says is that it is not contrary to L20F5 to explain >>>"correctly". OK. Richard Hills: >>No, un-OK. Herman's weak attempted paraphrase of "not contrary" >>ain't synonymous with the strong command "overriding requirement". Herman De Wael: >Well, if they intended to say "overriding requirement" why did they >write "not contrary"? Richard Hills: They - the WBF Laws Committee - DID write "overriding requirement". They - the WBF Laws Committee - DID NOT write the watery wimpy words "not contrary". "Not contrary" was the Prince of Wael's watery wimpy words, attempting to reinterpret a WBF LC ++command++ to a mere suggestion. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527): "And if, to be sure, sometimes you need to conceal a fact with words, do it in such a way that it does not become known, or, if it does become known, that you have a ready and quick defence." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/18f6c923/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 06:36:53 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 04:36:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] for your amusement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B61F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Jeff Easterson: >..... >So I started hand-scoring, only to discover that many of the entered EW >pair numbers were obviously incorrect. And there were at least 15 (more >actually) 60% scores. (Not 15 bds, 15 bd. sets). And I had to check all >bds. to see who had played a bd. twice without noticing. > >Quiz problem (if anyone is still interested) How long did it take me to >score the tournament? > >Ciao, JE Richard Hills: Less than an hour. Ciao, RH http://www.wired.com/2009/11/1112abacus-beats-calculator/ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/dfb97ab0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 07:33:05 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:33:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B63E@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Grattan Endicott, November 2009 +=+ I expect a deal of argument to surround my expressions of opinion, although it should not be thought that I do not start with the advantage of advice upon occasion. However, a considerable weight of my thrust is often directed towards establishing what the laws do not say. It is so easy to write into one's idea of the laws, and rely on, words that in truth are not there. I despair of myself at times when I realize that I have been blind to what is not in view. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/b6fe431d/attachment.html From bgxman at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 07:49:58 2014 From: bgxman at gmail.com (Bruce Crossman) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:49:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] for your amusement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B61F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B61F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: longer than my patience would have permitted - so I would never have completed it! Bruce. On 28 April 2014 14:36, Richard James HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Jeff Easterson: > > >..... > >So I started hand-scoring, only to discover that many of the entered EW > >pair numbers were obviously incorrect. And there were at least 15 (more > >actually) 60% scores. (Not 15 bds, 15 bd. sets). And I had to check all > >bds. to see who had played a bd. twice without noticing. > > > >Quiz problem (if anyone is still interested) How long did it take me to > >score the tournament? > > > >Ciao, JE > > Richard Hills: > > Less than an hour. > > Ciao, RH > *http://www.wired.com/2009/11/1112abacus-beats-calculator/* > UNOFFICIAL > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- regards, Bruce Crossman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/18afc80c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 28 08:13:04 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:13:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <535DF170.1010909@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL > Richard Hills: > In January I forget to correctly count pard?s Blackwood response, > bid 7H, but alas the ace of trumps was offside. The deal was not > ?saved? for my side. > Thus if my pard or myself forgets our system, why on earth should > we be entitled to lie to ?save? / steal the deal from our opponents? OK Richard, let me tell you why: My partner misexplains. He makes a call, with UI for me. I succeed in selecting a call which is not based on the UI. Thanks to this call, my partner wakes up and rescues us. OK? Why indeed not! But now my opponents ask me a question about his call. If I explain "correctly", my partner will not be allowed to rescue us, because he now also has UI. So the "lying to rescue us" happens only because the opponents have asked a question that has nothing to do with the actual situation. That is why I believe I should be allowed to "lie". You constantly compare the consistent and the "correct" answers to the question. I compare the consistent answer to the non-answer to a non-question. I see no reason why I should be ashamed to accept that partner rescues us what they have not asked a question, and I see no reason either why we should be damned because an opponent asks a question that has no bearing on the actual situation. Ask yourself the following question: Your partner misexplains, and you act according to L20F5 and say nothing - ok? And now your LHO asks "really?". Do you lie, or not? Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 08:52:04 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 06:52:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Law 20F1, third sentence: "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." Herman De Wael: >..... >Ask yourself the following question: Your partner mis- >explains, and you act according to L20F5 and say >nothing - ok? And now your LHO asks "really?". > >Do you lie, or not? Richard Hills: Neither. I summon CTD Sean Mullamphy so that he can explain the below official interpretation of Law 20F1 to my opponents. WBF LC minutes, 1st September 1998, item 14: "The Committee's attention was drawn to an internet discussion as to whether it is legitimate for a player to address a question to the player who has made the call asked about. This abnormal procedure can only be followed with the consent of the Director, who must be called, and at an appropriate time in the absence of the player's partner. Furthermore the Director must be persuaded that the circumstances require it: it is to be ++avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct++. Players must correct their partner's explanations voluntarily at the due time specified in the Laws." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/af7cbff1/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 28 09:46:22 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:46:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> Well Richard, that wonn't work: Richard James HILLS schreef: > UNOFFICIAL >>..... >>Ask yourself the following question: Your partner mis- >>explains, and you act according to L20F5 and say >>nothing - ok? And now your LHO asks ?really??. >> >>Do you lie, or not? > Richard Hills: > Neither. I summon CTD Sean Mullamphy so that he can > explain the below official interpretation of Law 20F1 to > my opponents. And if the explanation was indeed correct, don't you say "yes, of course!"? Calling the TD at this time is tantamount to admitting that it was indeed wrong. Or at the very least, CTD Sean Mullamphy may rule that it is possible, when your partner does correct his misexplanation, that he did so in response to your calling of the director, and that he had UI banning him from making the rescue bid. IMO, the only answer that gives no UI to partner is the simple (lie) "of course!". When an opponent asks you something to which he is not entitled to know the answer, you must be allowed to lie your way out of it. What do you do if your called to my table because someone asked me "do you have the queen of diamonds?" and I responded "no, ladies never want to be in my hands!" and it turns out I do have the DQ? I have lied to him, but can I be convicted of MI? Surely not. And neither can I be guilty of MI for responding "of course!". Which is why I also want to be able to give the consistent answer: not giving UI to my partner. And you may maintain that this is what the laws (or the WBFLC) say, I maintain that this is bad for the sport of bridge and the WBF LC should change their opinion of the case. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 28 10:26:50 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:26:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> Why won't it work? If an opponent asks you whether your partner's explanation of your call was correct there is only one legal answer (regardless of whether it was correct or not): You say that your partner's explanation stands, and if it is incorrect you will correct it in due time and in the correct way. If this answer does not satisfy your opponent he is (of course) free to call the director. (And you will of course continue to explain your partner's calls according to your own knowledge of your partnership understandings!) Sven > Herman De Wael > Well Richard, that wonn't work: > > Richard James HILLS schreef: > > UNOFFICIAL > >>..... > >>Ask yourself the following question: Your partner mis- explains, and > >>you act according to L20F5 and say nothing - ok? And now your LHO asks > >>"really?". > >> > >>Do you lie, or not? > > Richard Hills: > > Neither. I summon CTD Sean Mullamphy so that he can explain the below > > official interpretation of Law 20F1 to my opponents. > > And if the explanation was indeed correct, don't you say "yes, of course!"? > Calling the TD at this time is tantamount to admitting that it was indeed > wrong. > Or at the very least, CTD Sean Mullamphy may rule that it is possible, when > your partner does correct his misexplanation, that he did so in response to your > calling of the director, and that he had UI banning him from making the rescue > bid. > > IMO, the only answer that gives no UI to partner is the simple (lie) "of course!". > > When an opponent asks you something to which he is not entitled to know the > answer, you must be allowed to lie your way out of it. > > What do you do if your called to my table because someone asked me "do you > have the queen of diamonds?" and I responded "no, ladies never want to be in > my hands!" and it turns out I do have the DQ? > > I have lied to him, but can I be convicted of MI? Surely not. > And neither can I be guilty of MI for responding "of course!". > Which is why I also want to be able to give the consistent answer: not giving UI > to my partner. > > And you may maintain that this is what the laws (or the WBFLC) say, I maintain > that this is bad for the sport of bridge and the WBF LC should change their > opinion of the case. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 28 12:12:32 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:12:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a001cf62ca$5ee1dcd0$1ca59670$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> >>Do you lie, or not? When an opponent asks you something to which he is not entitled to know the answer, you must be allowed to lie your way out of it. ton: Above two sentences Herman used. As long as the choice of your words is mainly made to support your personal opinion in this discussion the quality of your arguments keeps rather poor. When a opponent asks me 'really?' when he does not trust the explanation by my partner the only thing I have to say is that I am not entitled to explain my own calls and I then add that my opponent should be aware of that. If you do not know that, what on earth makes it useful to listen to you at all? From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 28 12:12:33 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:12:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> Message-ID: <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> Let me tell you why that won't work, Sven. Suppose I play against you and in the first board I ask you to tell me if your partner's explanation was correct. Unsuspectingly, you answer "yes". The on the second board, I ask the same question. Again you answer "yes". On the third board, I strike lucky. Again, I ask the same question, but now your partner did misexplain. You give me the spiel below. Now, not only do I know you are having the misunderstanding, but so does your partner. Only by being allowed to answer "yes" to the third question vs well as the first and second, can you avoid giving out that information. And of course you're going to tell me that I won't be asking the same question 3 times. But if it works, why shouldn't I? And of course you're going to tell me that's harassment and will be forbidden. True. But then I'm just going to ask at every single turn "what does your partner's call mean?", something which you cannot prevent me from doing. One day I'll strike lucky. Unless you're allowed to provide the consistent answer. Doesn't happen in real life? No, indeed not. But what does happen is an innocent question, and the result is the same. Unless the consistent answer is acceptable. Herman. Sven Pran schreef: > Why won't it work? > If an opponent asks you whether your partner's explanation of your call was > correct there is only one legal answer (regardless of whether it was correct > or not): > > You say that your partner's explanation stands, and if it is incorrect you > will correct it in due time and in the correct way. If this answer does not > satisfy your opponent he is (of course) free to call the director. > > (And you will of course continue to explain your partner's calls according > to your own knowledge of your partnership understandings!) > > Sven > >> Herman De Wael >> Well Richard, that wonn't work: >> >> Richard James HILLS schreef: >>> UNOFFICIAL >>>> ..... >>>> Ask yourself the following question: Your partner mis- explains, and >>>> you act according to L20F5 and say nothing - ok? And now your LHO asks >>>> "really?". >>>> >>>> Do you lie, or not? >>> Richard Hills: >>> Neither. I summon CTD Sean Mullamphy so that he can explain the below >>> official interpretation of Law 20F1 to my opponents. >> >> And if the explanation was indeed correct, don't you say "yes, of > course!"? >> Calling the TD at this time is tantamount to admitting that it was indeed >> wrong. >> Or at the very least, CTD Sean Mullamphy may rule that it is possible, > when >> your partner does correct his misexplanation, that he did so in response > to your >> calling of the director, and that he had UI banning him from making the > rescue >> bid. >> >> IMO, the only answer that gives no UI to partner is the simple (lie) "of > course!". >> >> When an opponent asks you something to which he is not entitled to know > the >> answer, you must be allowed to lie your way out of it. >> >> What do you do if your called to my table because someone asked me "do you >> have the queen of diamonds?" and I responded "no, ladies never want to be > in >> my hands!" and it turns out I do have the DQ? >> >> I have lied to him, but can I be convicted of MI? Surely not. >> And neither can I be guilty of MI for responding "of course!". >> Which is why I also want to be able to give the consistent answer: not > giving UI >> to my partner. >> >> And you may maintain that this is what the laws (or the WBFLC) say, I > maintain >> that this is bad for the sport of bridge and the WBF LC should change > their >> opinion of the case. >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 28 13:07:01 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:07:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> "Yes" is not a legal answer. I admit I might quite possible answer "yes" the first time you asked, but once you started repeatedly asking such questions I would certainly not give anything but the legal answer. I might even myself call the Director and object to your persistent violations of Laws 74A2 and 20F. > Herman De Wael > Let me tell you why that won't work, Sven. > Suppose I play against you and in the first board I ask you to tell me if your > partner's explanation was correct. > Unsuspectingly, you answer "yes". > The on the second board, I ask the same question. Again you answer "yes". > On the third board, I strike lucky. Again, I ask the same question, but now your > partner did misexplain. You give me the spiel below. Now, not only do I know > you are having the misunderstanding, but so does your partner. Only by being > allowed to answer "yes" to the third question vs well as the first and second, > can you avoid giving out that information. > > And of course you're going to tell me that I won't be asking the same question 3 > times. But if it works, why shouldn't I? > > And of course you're going to tell me that's harassment and will be forbidden. > True. But then I'm just going to ask at every single turn "what does your > partner's call mean?", something which you cannot prevent me from doing. > One day I'll strike lucky. Unless you're allowed to provide the consistent > answer. > > Doesn't happen in real life? No, indeed not. But what does happen is an > innocent question, and the result is the same. Unless the consistent answer is > acceptable. > > Herman. > > Sven Pran schreef: > > Why won't it work? > > If an opponent asks you whether your partner's explanation of your > > call was correct there is only one legal answer (regardless of whether > > it was correct or not): > > > > You say that your partner's explanation stands, and if it is incorrect > > you will correct it in due time and in the correct way. If this answer > > does not satisfy your opponent he is (of course) free to call the director. > > > > (And you will of course continue to explain your partner's calls > > according to your own knowledge of your partnership understandings!) > > > > Sven > > > >> Herman De Wael > >> Well Richard, that wonn't work: > >> > >> Richard James HILLS schreef: > >>> UNOFFICIAL > >>>> ..... > >>>> Ask yourself the following question: Your partner mis- explains, > >>>> and you act according to L20F5 and say nothing - ok? And now your > >>>> LHO asks "really?". > >>>> > >>>> Do you lie, or not? > >>> Richard Hills: > >>> Neither. I summon CTD Sean Mullamphy so that he can explain the > >>> below official interpretation of Law 20F1 to my opponents. > >> > >> And if the explanation was indeed correct, don't you say "yes, of > > course!"? > >> Calling the TD at this time is tantamount to admitting that it was > >> indeed wrong. > >> Or at the very least, CTD Sean Mullamphy may rule that it is > >> possible, > > when > >> your partner does correct his misexplanation, that he did so in > >> response > > to your > >> calling of the director, and that he had UI banning him from making > >> the > > rescue > >> bid. > >> > >> IMO, the only answer that gives no UI to partner is the simple (lie) > >> "of > > course!". > >> > >> When an opponent asks you something to which he is not entitled to > >> know > > the > >> answer, you must be allowed to lie your way out of it. > >> > >> What do you do if your called to my table because someone asked me > >> "do you have the queen of diamonds?" and I responded "no, ladies > >> never want to be > > in > >> my hands!" and it turns out I do have the DQ? > >> > >> I have lied to him, but can I be convicted of MI? Surely not. > >> And neither can I be guilty of MI for responding "of course!". > >> Which is why I also want to be able to give the consistent answer: > >> not > > giving UI > >> to my partner. > >> > >> And you may maintain that this is what the laws (or the WBFLC) say, I > > maintain > >> that this is bad for the sport of bridge and the WBF LC should change > > their > >> opinion of the case. > >> > >> Herman. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 28 13:12:07 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:12:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a001cf62ca$5ee1dcd0$1ca59670$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <00a001cf62ca$5ee1dcd0$1ca59670$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <535E3787.30604@skynet.be> My answer to Sven is valid to this reaction as well. Any answer to such a question other than "yes" reveals, IMO, that the answer could well be "no". Or, when it does not reveal it, could be construed to have revealed it when partner now remembers. In order not to give UI to partner (which is something we should encourage), it should be acceptable to simply answer "yes". You may want to answer other things, I am just saying that answering "yes" must be acceptable as well. Herman. ton schreef: > >>> Do you lie, or not? > > > When an opponent asks you something to which he is not entitled to know the > answer, you must be allowed to lie your way out of it. > > > ton: > > Above two sentences Herman used. > > As long as the choice of your words is mainly made to support your personal > opinion in this discussion the quality of your arguments keeps rather poor. > > When a opponent asks me 'really?' when he does not trust the explanation by > my partner the only thing I have to say is that I am not entitled to explain > my own calls and I then add that my opponent should be aware of that. > > If you do not know that, what on earth makes it useful to listen to you at > all? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 28 13:30:26 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:30:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535E3787.30604@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <00a001cf62ca$5ee1dcd0$1ca59670$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <535E3787.30604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006401cf62d5$413df7d0$c3b9e770$@online.no> With me in the picture your conduct warrants a substantial PP for persistent improper procedure that constitutes a violation of Law 74A2. Like a Director once famously said to a player in Norway: "I offer you 6 penalty points, are you satisfied with that?" Answer: "Me, I am never satisfied with penalty points I am" "Then I give you 12 penalty points!" > Herman De Wael > My answer to Sven is valid to this reaction as well. > Any answer to such a question other than "yes" reveals, IMO, that the answer > could well be "no". > Or, when it does not reveal it, could be construed to have revealed it when > partner now remembers. > In order not to give UI to partner (which is something we should encourage), it > should be acceptable to simply answer "yes". > You may want to answer other things, I am just saying that answering "yes" > must be acceptable as well. > Herman. > > ton schreef: > > > >>> Do you lie, or not? > > > > > > When an opponent asks you something to which he is not entitled to > > know the answer, you must be allowed to lie your way out of it. > > > > > > ton: > > > > Above two sentences Herman used. > > > > As long as the choice of your words is mainly made to support your > > personal opinion in this discussion the quality of your arguments keeps rather > poor. > > > > When a opponent asks me 'really?' when he does not trust the > > explanation by my partner the only thing I have to say is that I am > > not entitled to explain my own calls and I then add that my opponent should > be aware of that. > > > > If you do not know that, what on earth makes it useful to listen to > > you at all? From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 28 14:06:54 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> Sven and Ton have not understood the point I am trying to make. Both will answer "I am not required to answer", regardless of whether the truth be "yes" or "no". But not every single player is called Sven Pran or Ton Kooijman. Most players will answer "yes" when the answer is yes. If you tell those players that they should answer "I am not required to answer" when the answer is no, then that answer simply means "no". Which is why I prefer to tell them that they should give the same answer whatever the truth. And to many players that answer will be "yes". Sven Pran schreef: > "Yes" is not a legal answer. Please remember what the question was: "really?". > I admit I might quite possible answer "yes" the first time you asked, but > once you started repeatedly asking such questions I would certainly not give > anything but the legal answer. > > I might even myself call the Director and object to your persistent > violations of Laws 74A2 and 20F. > All I need to do is ask it once, and then when I am doubting the explanation. If your answer is different the second time ... And please remind yourself that this is just a parallel example. The true problem arises when the question is "what is 4NT". A players ia allowed to ask that question without any violation of law. And with people telling me that I can gain an advantage by asking, why not? We are trying to decide what a player should answer on just the one question, when a "true" answer will reveal non-entitled information to opponents, and give UI to partner. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 28 16:49:13 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:49:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01cf62f1$05cf3620$116da260$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sven and Ton have not understood the point I am trying to make. [Sven Pran] All I understand is that you want to take advantage of your opponents' ignorance of the laws, and yourself to violate the laws in order to obtain a situation that is unfortunate for your opponents. This isn't bridge. This isn't gentlemanlike. Or as the English say: "This isn't Cricket". From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 28 17:01:52 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:01:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01cf62f1$05cf3620$116da260$@online.no> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> <000c01cf62f1$05cf3620$116da260$@online.no> Message-ID: <535E6D60.2050006@skynet.be> I'm sorry, Sven Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael >> Sven and Ton have not understood the point I am trying to make. > [Sven Pran] > All I understand is that you want to take advantage of your opponents' > ignorance of the laws, and yourself to violate the laws in order to obtain a > situation that is unfortunate for your opponents. > There is no advantage! If my opponent does not ask a follow-up question, he will not learn that I am having a misunderstanding, and my partner will not receive UI. If my opponent does ask a follow-up question, and I answer "consistently", then he will not learn about my misunderstanding, and my partner will not receive UI. I have gained no advantage whatsoever. Furthermore, I have not told my opponent anything he did not want to know (don't forget that I have correctly described my partner's intentions and presumbly his hand), and my opponent has not been withheld anything he was entitled to. My opponent has not been damaged, nor is he disadvantaged with relation to his line, moet of whom will not have asked a follow-up question. It is this mechanism you refuse to see. I do not gain any advantage over other people in my situation. If the Majority view prevails, then opponents who ask questions are advantaged over those who let the game flow naturally. Do you really want this? Herman. > This isn't bridge. > This isn't gentlemanlike. > > Or as the English say: "This isn't Cricket". > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 28 17:33:36 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:33:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535E6D60.2050006@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> <000c01cf62f1$05cf3620$116da260$@online.no> <535E6D60.2050006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01cf62f7$38bd06b0$aa371410$@online.no> Many words from Herman. In short: If there is no misinformation then there is no reason for any corrective action. If there is misinformation the laws prescribe how that is to be handled. If there is UI the laws prescribe how that is to be handled. In either case the Director shall be called to the table and is responsible for sorting things out. No player is allowed to act in conflict with the laws (allegedly) in order to avoid damage. End of story. > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 28. april 2014 17:02 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I'm sorry, Sven > > Sven Pran schreef: > >> Herman De Wael > >> Sven and Ton have not understood the point I am trying to make. > > [Sven Pran] > > All I understand is that you want to take advantage of your opponents' > > ignorance of the laws, and yourself to violate the laws in order to > > obtain a situation that is unfortunate for your opponents. > > > > There is no advantage! > > If my opponent does not ask a follow-up question, he will not learn that I am > having a misunderstanding, and my partner will not receive UI. > If my opponent does ask a follow-up question, and I answer "consistently", then > he will not learn about my misunderstanding, and my partner will not receive > UI. > > I have gained no advantage whatsoever. > > Furthermore, I have not told my opponent anything he did not want to know > (don't forget that I have correctly described my partner's intentions and > presumbly his hand), and my opponent has not been withheld anything he was > entitled to. > > My opponent has not been damaged, nor is he disadvantaged with relation to > his line, moet of whom will not have asked a follow-up question. > > It is this mechanism you refuse to see. > > I do not gain any advantage over other people in my situation. > > If the Majority view prevails, then opponents who ask questions are > advantaged over those who let the game flow naturally. > > Do you really want this? > > Herman. > > > This isn't bridge. > > This isn't gentlemanlike. > > > > Or as the English say: "This isn't Cricket". > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 28 18:00:24 2014 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:00:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101cf62fa$f704d9b0$e50e8d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Well, this is why the idea to have a member of the LC trying to educate the contributors of this forum is not a very good one. HdW is just adding nonsense to the messages he sent before. Just to illustrate his ignorance: my answer would not be: 'I am not required to answer' but 'I am not allowed to answer'. And if my opponents take that as a yes or no they are as ignorant as HdW is. Case closed. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De Wael Verzonden: maandag 28 april 2014 14:07 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Sven and Ton have not understood the point I am trying to make. Both will answer "I am not required to answer", regardless of whether the truth be "yes" or "no". But not every single player is called Sven Pran or Ton Kooijman. Most players will answer "yes" when the answer is yes. If you tell those players that they should answer "I am not required to answer" when the answer is no, then that answer simply means "no". Which is why I prefer to tell them that they should give the same answer whatever the truth. And to many players that answer will be "yes". Sven Pran schreef: > "Yes" is not a legal answer. Please remember what the question was: "really?". > I admit I might quite possible answer "yes" the first time you asked, > but once you started repeatedly asking such questions I would > certainly not give anything but the legal answer. > > I might even myself call the Director and object to your persistent > violations of Laws 74A2 and 20F. > All I need to do is ask it once, and then when I am doubting the explanation. If your answer is different the second time ... And please remind yourself that this is just a parallel example. The true problem arises when the question is "what is 4NT". A players ia allowed to ask that question without any violation of law. And with people telling me that I can gain an advantage by asking, why not? We are trying to decide what a player should answer on just the one question, when a "true" answer will reveal non-entitled information to opponents, and give UI to partner. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2014.0.4570 / Virusdatabase: 3920/7405 - datum van uitgifte: 04/28/14 From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Mon Apr 28 22:04:13 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:04:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B26A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B26A@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <24E39DDD-58D2-41AC-AE6F-E935356873E0@verizon.net> On Apr 27, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Richard James HILLS wrote: > The key issue on this thread is the question, ?Is anything not specifically > prohibited permitted?? with the application ?Since it is not mentioned in > the Lawbook, is dummy entitled to spread her hand after an opening > lead out of turn?? > > However, Steve Willner was shown to be preaching a false Gospel > when a relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute was unearthed. I would argue that "a relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute" cannot exist. Anything the WBF may have published as to the interpretation of any law could only refer to a law that existed in 1998, from the lawbook that was operative in 1998. When that lawbook (published in 1997) was superseded by the current one (published in 2008) it ceased to be relevant, any laws in it ceased to be relevant (even those that were superceded by identical ones), and any interpretations of any laws in it ceased to be relevant. When a new lawbook appears, it contains the totality of the laws and their interpretations; any previous elaborations, explanations or interpretations must either be incorporated, or restated subsequent to publication, or cease to exist. It must be possible to determine whether the WBF has issued any relevant interpretations of a current law in the current lawbook without having to read every minute issued by the WBF Laws Committee since its foundation. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/da71364d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 01:21:35 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:21:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E070@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Another relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute (second paragraph): "The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and until it changed them." Eric Landau: >I would argue that "a relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute" >cannot exist. Anything the WBF may have published as to the >interpretation of any law could only refer to a law that existed in 1998, >from the lawbook that was operative in 1998. When that lawbook >(published in 1997) was superseded by the current one (published in >2008) it ceased to be relevant, any laws in it ceased to be relevant (even >those that were superseded by identical ones), and any interpretations of >any laws in it ceased to be relevant. When a new lawbook appears, it >contains the totality of the laws and their interpretations; any previous >elaborations, explanations or interpretations must either be incorporated, >or restated subsequent to publication, or cease to exist. Richard Hills: By Eric's logic each and every ACBL regulation would have vanished into a puff of smoke when the 2007 Lawbook took effect in 2008 for ACBL-land. The 1997 concept and definition of "convention" was replaced by the 2007 concept and definition of "special partnership understanding". To avoid all pre-2008 regulations mentioning the word "convention" from becoming invalidated, the word "convention" appears exactly once in the 2007 Lawbook, in the second sentence of Law 40B1(b): "A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning." Eric Landau: >It must be possible to determine whether the WBF has issued any >relevant interpretations of a current law in the current lawbook >without having to read every minute issued by the WBF Laws >Committee since its foundation. Grattan Endicott, May 2005: +=+ There are now NBOs where under EU law it is possible for an external non-bridge court of arbitration to intervene. Opinion thinks it very likely that a principal concern of such a body might be to investigate whether an authority has exceeded the powers granted to it under the rules of the game. Among the matters which I regard as important in simplifying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is the use of explicit language, to include unequivocal statements as to the scope and limitations of the powers of regulating authorities, appeals committees and directors, and their accountability for the exercise of those powers. I think also that the letter of the law should embody the spirit of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140428/03889de3/attachment-0001.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 29 02:58:23 2014 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:58:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E070@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E070@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard James HILLS" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 18:21 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > UNOFFICIAL > > Another relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute (second paragraph): > > "The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the > Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and until it > changed them." My experience has been that much of what has been ascribed as interpretation of law is [actually] change of law. And, what is curious is that years later when the law is reviewed, it is that most of those passages that reflect changes in law do not show up as revisions. This speaks to me that such so-called interpretations are thereby repudiated with the new issue when the passages do not reflect the interpretation from the past. And in this matter I am supportive of Eric's notes. regards roger pewick > Eric Landau: > >>I would argue that "a relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute" >>cannot exist. Anything the WBF may have published as to the >>interpretation of any law could only refer to a law that existed in 1998, >>from the lawbook that was operative in 1998. When that lawbook >>(published in 1997) was superseded by the current one (published in >>2008) it ceased to be relevant, any laws in it ceased to be relevant (even >>those that were superseded by identical ones), and any interpretations of >>any laws in it ceased to be relevant. When a new lawbook appears, it >>contains the totality of the laws and their interpretations; any previous >>elaborations, explanations or interpretations must either be incorporated, >>or restated subsequent to publication, or cease to exist. > > Richard Hills: > > By Eric's logic each and every ACBL regulation would have vanished > into a puff of smoke when the 2007 Lawbook took effect in 2008 for > ACBL-land. > > The 1997 concept and definition of "convention" was replaced by the > 2007 concept and definition of "special partnership understanding". To > avoid all pre-2008 regulations mentioning the word "convention" from > becoming invalidated, the word "convention" appears exactly once in > the 2007 Lawbook, in the second sentence of Law 40B1(b): > > "A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides > otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute > special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has > an artificial meaning." > > Eric Landau: > >>It must be possible to determine whether the WBF has issued any >>relevant interpretations of a current law in the current lawbook >>without having to read every minute issued by the WBF Laws >>Committee since its foundation. > > Grattan Endicott, May 2005: > > +=+ There are now NBOs where under EU law it is possible for an > external non-bridge court of arbitration to intervene. Opinion thinks > it very likely that a principal concern of such a body might be to > investigate whether an authority has exceeded the powers granted > to it under the rules of the game. Among the matters which I regard > as important in simplifying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is the use > of explicit language, to include unequivocal statements as to the > scope and limitations of the powers of regulating authorities, > appeals committees and directors, and their accountability for the > exercise of those powers. > > I think also that the letter of the law should embody the spirit of > the law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Apr 29 03:00:16 2014 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:00:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> Message-ID: <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> On 2014-04-25 11:18 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > It is spreading the hand that would be fourth to play to the trick > that would call attention to the lead being OOT. I see the point, but there must be _something_ it's proper for dummy to do after an OLOOT that nobody else calls attention to. Those who think it's proper for dummy to call attention have no problem, but that's not consistent with the actual Laws text as written. If you are willing to accept that the wording is "not what they really meant," you can say that about any other Law. By the way, anyone who cares about my views on any subject should go by what I've actually written and not by someone else's statements that purport to represent my views. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 03:39:46 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:39:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E2FC@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL WBF LC minutes, 26th September 2013, conclusion: "The Secretary [Laurie Kelso] commented that the committee had now considered most of the submitted material proposing a change in the effect of the Law. The items addressed however represented only about 8% of the total number of submissions received, the balance [92%] being material that targeted improvements in wording and/or layout while still retaining the current meaning." Steve Willner: >..... >If you are willing to accept that the wording is "not what >they really meant," you can say that about any other Law. >.... Richard Hills: Indeed. In my opinion the intent of the Drafting Committee (for Duplicate Bridge) or the intent of the designer (for so- called "Euro" strategy games) should be paramount when interpreting the rules of these strategy games. For example, the rules for the card game "Kittens In A Blender" contain an instruction for you to apologise to your cats after playing the game. (And some of the profits from the game are donated by the designer to a no-kill cat shelter.) What's the problem? http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/115105/kittens-in-a-blender UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140429/e42e24ab/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 06:51:04 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 04:51:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E3AF@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >Indeed. In my opinion the intent of the Drafting Committee >(for Duplicate Bridge) or the intent of the designer (for so- >called "Euro" strategy games) should be paramount when >interpreting the rules of these strategy games. > >For example, the rules for the card game "Kittens In A >Blender" contain an instruction for you to apologise to >your cats after playing the game. (And some of the profits >from the game are donated by the designer to a no-kill cat >shelter.) What's the problem? The problem is an ultra-narrow literalist approach to the interpretation of the rules of a game. As a reductio ad absurdum, an ultimate literalist who played the card game "Kittens In A Blender" would not play any cards but instead place actual kittens in an actual blender. Yecch!!! A milder Yecch is my reaction to an ultra-narrow literalist Secretary Bird's interpretation of Law 54C: "If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead." who ultra-narrowly literally observes that this Law does not specifically state dummy spreading her cards is an infraction. But Law 54C should be broadly read in context: (a) If the future dummy has committed a Law 24 infraction, that exposed card or cards does not preclude a future declarer from retaining her traditional five options after an opening lead out of turn. Hence a Law 24 infraction by dummy is prima facie merely a mild infraction in this context (plus Law 23 is available if needed). (b) If instead the current dummy has exposed a card or cards, then Law 54C applies the strongest word "must" to declarer. Hence a contextual interpretation of the entire Lawbook does, in my opinion, imply that this time dummy has committed an infraction which is worse than a Law 24 infraction. UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140429/a0f8ed81/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 08:12:56 2014 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard James HILLS) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:12:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E41F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Part of official interpretation of Law 20F1 ++avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct++ Herman De Wael >>>..... >>>Ask yourself the following question: Your partner mis- >>>explains, and you act according to L20F5 and say >>>nothing - ok? And now your LHO asks "really?". >>> >>>Do you lie, or not? Richard Hills: >>Neither. I summon CTD Sean Mullamphy so that he can >>explain the [above] official interpretation of Law 20F1 to >>my opponents. Herman De Wael: >And if the explanation was indeed correct, don't you say >"yes, of course!"? Monty Python ("Cheese Shop" sketch): Not as such. Ton Kooijman and Richard Hills: my answer would not be: "I am not required to answer" but "I am not allowed to answer". Herman De Wael: >Calling the TD at this time is tantamount to admitting that >it was indeed wrong. Sven Pran and Richard Hills: All I understand is that you want to take advantage of your opponents' ignorance of the laws, and yourself to violate the laws in order to obtain a situation that is unfortunate for your opponents. This isn't bridge. This isn't gentlemanlike. Or as the English [and Australians] say: "This isn't Cricket". Herman De Wael: >Or at the very least, CTD Sean Mullamphy may rule that it is >possible, when your partner does correct his misexplanation, >that he did so in response to your calling of the director, and >that he had UI banning him from making the rescue bid. Richard Hills: LHO asked an illegal question. I summoned the Director. So under Law 16D the consequences of my TD summoning are AI to my side and UI to the other side. What's the problem? No problem. CTD Sean Mullamphy does not ride his hobby- horse, instead he applies the Laws as written and officially interpreted. =+= "I have just one thing to say about you. You are a nit- picking pedant." "That is two things." UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140429/934eb17c/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 29 09:36:49 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:36:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101cf62fa$f704d9b0$e50e8d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B689@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <535E074E.2090103@skynet.be> <004e01cf62bb$9ba211d0$d2e63570$@online.no> <535E2991.6020608@skynet.be> <006301cf62d1$fb536ff0$f1fa4fd0$@online.no> <535E445E.8070903@skynet.be> <002101cf62fa$f704d9b0$e50e8d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <535F5691.4070006@skynet.be> Again Ton, you give your answer. What about those players out there, who are not chairman of the WBF LC, and who simply answer "yes" the first time, and "I don't have to answer" the second time - they have been duped into an admission. And the question is not simply "really?" - the question is "what is 4Di?" And you cannot avoid breaking L20F5 when answering that one truthfully. But, I remember, L20F5 is not important. Except that the WBFLC in Shanghai said it was (yes, the very same minute has two totally contradicting pieces of advice). Herman. ton schreef: > Well, > > this is why the idea to have a member of the LC trying to educate the > contributors of this forum is not a very good one. HdW is just adding > nonsense to the messages he sent before. Just to illustrate his ignorance: > my answer would not be: 'I am not required to answer' but 'I am not allowed > to answer'. > And if my opponents take that as a yes or no they are as ignorant as HdW is. > > > Case closed. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Herman De > Wael > Verzonden: maandag 28 april 2014 14:07 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sven and Ton have not understood the point I am trying to make. > Both will answer "I am not required to answer", regardless of whether the > truth be "yes" or "no". > But not every single player is called Sven Pran or Ton Kooijman. Most > players will answer "yes" when the answer is yes. If you tell those players > that they should answer "I am not required to answer" when the answer is no, > then that answer simply means "no". > Which is why I prefer to tell them that they should give the same answer > whatever the truth. And to many players that answer will be "yes". > > Sven Pran schreef: >> "Yes" is not a legal answer. > > Please remember what the question was: "really?". > >> I admit I might quite possible answer "yes" the first time you asked, >> but once you started repeatedly asking such questions I would >> certainly not give anything but the legal answer. >> >> I might even myself call the Director and object to your persistent >> violations of Laws 74A2 and 20F. >> > > All I need to do is ask it once, and then when I am doubting the > explanation. If your answer is different the second time ... > > And please remind yourself that this is just a parallel example. The true > problem arises when the question is "what is 4NT". A players ia allowed to > ask that question without any violation of law. > > And with people telling me that I can gain an advantage by asking, why not? > > We are trying to decide what a player should answer on just the one > question, when a "true" answer will reveal non-entitled information to > opponents, and give UI to partner. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2014.0.4570 / Virusdatabase: 3920/7405 - datum van uitgifte: > 04/28/14 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 29 09:38:55 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:38:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E41F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E41F@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <535F570F.4070700@skynet.be> Richard James HILLS schreef: > Richard Hills: > LHO asked an illegal question. I summoned the Director. So > under Law 16D the consequences of my TD summoning are > AI to my side and UI to the other side. > What?s the problem? The problem is that yu have now found a way to transmit UI via AI. Does that make the UI AI? Aha, now we have the solution to the problem. We simply tell partner he was mistaken and it's AI to him! Great one, Richard. Herman. From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Apr 29 14:44:38 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:44:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E070@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7E070@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Richard James HILLS wrote: > Another relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute (second paragraph): > > ?The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the > Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and until it > changed them.? > > Eric Landau: > > >I would argue that ?a relevant 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute? > >cannot exist. Anything the WBF may have published as to the > >interpretation of any law could only refer to a law that existed in 1998, > >from the lawbook that was operative in 1998. When that lawbook > >(published in 1997) was superseded by the current one (published in > >2008) it ceased to be relevant, any laws in it ceased to be relevant (even > >those that were superseded by identical ones), and any interpretations of > >any laws in it ceased to be relevant. When a new lawbook appears, it > >contains the totality of the laws and their interpretations; any previous > >elaborations, explanations or interpretations must either be incorporated, > >or restated subsequent to publication, or cease to exist. > > Richard Hills: > > By Eric?s logic each and every ACBL regulation would have vanished > into a puff of smoke when the 2007 Lawbook took effect in 2008 for > ACBL-land. Not so. ACBL regulations are separately published, and vanish into a puff of smoke only if and when they are superseded by newly published ACBL regulations. At which point any prior interpretation the ACBL may have issued of those (i.e. their own) earlier regulations would cease to exist. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140429/97e5c5a9/attachment.html From ehaa.bridge at verizon.net Tue Apr 29 15:04:46 2014 From: ehaa.bridge at verizon.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:04:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Three incidents In-Reply-To: <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> References: <5351D9AA.2030202@nhcc.net> <005801cf5b9d$1db07390$59115ab0$@optusnet.com.au> <5352E0C1.5090504@nhcc.net> <5357B0A6.9020205@ulb.ac.be> <5357CAEC.50600@nhcc.net> <000901cf5f01$ac25acf0$047106d0$@online.no> <5357D870.8090502@nhcc.net> <535A7CE1.1090803@verizon.net> <535EF9A0.9040509@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:00 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > I see the point, but there must be _something_ it's proper for dummy to > do after an OLOOT that nobody else calls attention to. Those who think > it's proper for dummy to call attention have no problem, but that's not > consistent with the actual Laws text as written. If you are willing to > accept that the wording is "not what they really meant," you can say > that about any other Law. I find it perfectly consistent with the actual Laws text as written. The argument isn't that an OLOOT triggers some sort of unwritten exception to L43, but rather that once an OLOOT triggers L54 ("...declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy... declarer may accept the irregular lead... dummy is spread [per] L41") *there is no dummy* until declarer exercises his option and designates one. The "limitations on Dummy" of L43A logically cannot apply while the identity of the dummy is unknown. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 30 16:35:49 2014 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:35:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/04/2014 3:20, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : Alain Gottcheiner: >Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly un- >playable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the illogical >explanation. Richard Hills: Not utterly unplayable; rather a simple requirement of Law 75A: "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). * AG : Perfectly right. But it is so difficult to do, and so difficult to ascertain that that has been done, that there is a very high probability that an adjusted score will be needed, and quite often not the right one. This is one of the most intricated situations in the game. IOW, we fail at "saving the board". * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20140430/29026906/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 30 17:28:16 2014 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:28:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> besides which, Richard's quote is about South's duties, having heard North's misexplanation. There is nothing South can do about misexplaining, it's a sad consequence of forgetting one's system sometimes. The problem Alain is talking about is the next one: South, having heard North's "correct" explanation of his own bid (which is of course inconsistent with his intentions) now also has UI. This for of UI is not unavoidable. North can avoid it by giving the consistent explanation. Richard wants to force North into giving UI to partner, then force South into not hearing that same UI. Unplayable. And no-one has yet answered the next question: WHat does director Richard do whan North does not give the UI: rule Missing UI? Herman. Alain Gottcheiner schreef: > Le 28/04/2014 3:20, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: >>Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly un- >>playable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the illogical >>explanation. > Richard Hills: > Not utterly unplayable; rather a simple requirement of Law 75A: > ?Whether or not North?s explanation is a correct statement of > partnership agreement, South, having heard North?s explanation, > knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge > is ?unauthorized information? (see Law 16A), so South must be > careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized > information (see Law 73C). > * > > AG : Perfectly right. But it is so difficult to do, and so difficult to > ascertain that that has been done, that there is a very high probability > that an adjusted score will be needed, and quite often not the right > one. This is one of the most intricated situations in the game. > IOW, we fail at "saving the board". * > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 30 18:31:12 2014 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:31:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC331A7B4F9@SDCWPIPEX02.IMMI.LOCAL> <53610A45.3030305@ulb.ac.be> <53611690.3080901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002f01cf6491$9982b7b0$cc882710$@online.no> I thought there is consensus that giving UI is not itself an infraction of law, using UI always is? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 30. april 2014 17:28 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Explaining agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > besides which, Richard's quote is about South's duties, having heard North's > misexplanation. There is nothing South can do about misexplaining, it's a sad > consequence of forgetting one's system sometimes. > The problem Alain is talking about is the next one: South, having heard North's > "correct" explanation of his own bid (which is of course inconsistent with his > intentions) now also has UI. > This for of UI is not unavoidable. North can avoid it by giving the consistent > explanation. > Richard wants to force North into giving UI to partner, then force South into not > hearing that same UI. Unplayable. > And no-one has yet answered the next question: WHat does director Richard do > whan North does not give the UI: rule Missing UI? > Herman. > > Alain Gottcheiner schreef: > > Le 28/04/2014 3:20, Richard James HILLS a ?crit : > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>Of course not. The only tiny problem is that the deal is utterly un- > >>playable, due to the amount of UI that is transmitted by the > >>illogical explanation. > > Richard Hills: > > Not utterly unplayable; rather a simple requirement of Law 75A: > > ?Whether or not North?s explanation is a correct statement of > > partnership agreement, South, having heard North?s explanation, knows > > that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is > > ?unauthorized information? (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to > > avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law > > 73C). > > * > > > > AG : Perfectly right. But it is so difficult to do, and so difficult > > to ascertain that that has been done, that there is a very high > > probability that an adjusted score will be needed, and quite often not > > the right one. This is one of the most intricated situations in the game. > > IOW, we fail at "saving the board". * > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml